Judgment

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal filed by the landlord arises out of a petition filed under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the respondent from the building situate in the city of Cochin.

3. The building in question was let out to the respondent by the father of the appellant on May 1, 1972 and he has been carrying on hotel business on the same. The said building stands on a portion of 13 cents of land owner by the appellant. The appellant was employed with Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and was due to retire on September 30, 1981. Prior to his retirement, the appellant filed the eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Ernakulam on January 15, 1981 wherein the appellant pleaded that after his retirement from service, he wanted to settle down in Cochin and except the building in question, he has no other house to reside and that the said building was required by him bona fide for his occupation. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the respondent was using the property in such a manner as to materially and permanently reduce its value, utility and purpose. The said petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that the building is not suitable for residential purposes inasmuch as it consists of two adjoining sheds and there is no toilet facility in the same and that it is not possible to reside therein. It was further pleaded that the appellant has a house and plot in the name of his wife within the municipal limits of Cochin Corporation and the same is suitable for the residence of the appellant and his family members and further there is a lot of vacant land on the back of the building and the same is suitable for constructing a house. The respondent denied that the property was being used in such a way as to reduce its utility. By his order dated February 20, 1989, the Rent Controller dismissed the said petition of the appellant and found that the appellant had failed in proving his bona fide need of the building and he was not entitled to an order of eviction under S.11 (3) of the Act and that he has also failed to adduce adquate evidence to prove that the respondent was indulging in an activity which has destroyed the value and utility of the property materially and permanently and he could not seek eviction under Section 11 (4)(ii) of the Act. The said order of the Rent Controller was reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated July 18, 1990. The Appellate Authority agreed with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the appellant could not seek the eviction of the respondent under S. 11 (4)(ii) of the Act but it disagreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondent was not liable to be evicted under S. 11 (3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority held that the appellant had succeeded in establishing the bona fide need set up by him. On revision under S. 20 of the Act, the High Court, by its judgment dated January 4,1991, set aside the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority regarding the bona fide need of the building for his occupation and agreed with the view of the Rent Controller that the appellant had failed to establish that he was entitled to evict the respondent on the ground of bona fide need under S. 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. As indicated earlier, although the appellant had sought eviction of the respondent under S. 11(3) as well as S. 11 (4)(ii), but the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have both found against him on S. 11 (4)(ii). The scope of the present appeal is confined to the question whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide need of the appellant for his personal occupation under S. 11(3) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of S. 11 of the Act and the second proviso thereto provide a