petitioner are seriously opposed by the counsel for the landlord. It is pointed out by the counsel that the decision reported in 2002(3) KLT 863 laid down the correct law. The second proviso to Section 11(3) was enacted with the object of ameliorating the misery of the impoverished tenant. Only the said person was in the contemplation of the legislature, while enacting the said provision. If artificial persons were allowed to take the benefit of the said provision, that would result in unmerited advantages being enjoyed by the rich and ineligible persons who would remain concealed behind the artificial persons created by them. Further the present Division Bench decision that is sought to be reconsidered, has only followed an earlier Division Bench decision viz., Palghat District Co-operative Bank v. Mohammed Kaleem {1996(1) KLT 247} . Since there is no prayer to reconsider the 1996 decision, it is pointed out that no relief could be granted in the present case. The counsel further points out that the tenant is a society having 64 branches spread over various places, and having 2000 workers who are engaged in weaving khadi clothes. However, in the petition schedule shop room, there were only two employees. In view of the above, it is contended that there is no evidence available to prove that
