T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) and also under Section 11(3) for bona fide need of the landlord. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. In appeal by the landlord, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has come up in revision.

2. The landlord is a partnership firm. Eviction was sought on the ground that one of the partners of the firm and the son of the managing partner decided to start a wholesale business in National Panasonic Mixi and Rice cooker in the petition schedule shop room and the partner of the firm have agreed for the same. In the objection, it was contended by the petitioner that the need set up by the landlord is without any bona fides, that the landlord is having other vacant shop rooms in the same building in their possession sufficient for the business of the son of the managing partner and therefore the claim is not sustainable. It was specifically pointed out in the objection that the rooms which were rented out to Mam Distributors have been surrendered to the landlord. They are on the ground floor of the building having numbers 18/1030 and 18/1031 and are suitable for the proposed wholesale business.

3. We notice that the Rent Control Court elaborately considered the oral and documentary evidence while adjudicating the specific issued whether the eviction sought is justified. Relying upon the report of the Commissioner (Ext.C1), the Rent Control Court found that shop room Nos. 18/1030 and 18/1031 were entrusted to Saradhi Roadways on 6.7.2001 and the Commissioner had verified the rent receipt also. These shop rooms are situated on the ground floor and are more specious than the petition schedule shop room. Each shop room is having width of 24 feet and length of 15 ½ feet. The Rent Control Court also found that even though the Commissioner was cross examined, nothing was brought out to discredit the version that the shop room Nos. 18/1030 and 18/1031 were entrusted to Saradhi Roadways after the institution of the petition. Finding that the landlord has suppressed the documents showing entrustment of those rooms, in spite of the admission by P.W.1 that he is in possession of those documents, the Rent Control Court drew adverse inference against the landlord. It was also observed that the landlord has no dispute with respect to the measurement of the shop room Nos. 18/1030 and 18/1031 shown by the Commissioner. On the basis of these evidence, the Rent Control Court found that there was no difficulty to start the proposed wholesale business in one of the shop rooms entrusted to the new tenant. On this finding, eviction was disallowed in the light of 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In appeal, to the appellate authority took the view that even if the landlord obtained vacant possession and let out those rooms after the filing of the Rent Control Petition, the fact that those were big rooms and could fetch a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- are special reasons within the meaning of the first proviso above and therefore ordered eviction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach made by the appellate authority is perverse. It is pointed out that the petition schedule room is in the ground floor of the multi-storied building belonging to the landlord firm. In the reply notice itself, the tenant had pointed out that there are vacant rooms available with the landlord which could be utilized for the purpose sought, i.e., room number 18/1032 and 18/1033. It is also pointed out that in the objection filed to the eviction petition, the availability of room Nos. 18/1030 and 18/1031 has been clearly pointed out by the tenant and there is nothing in the pleadings of the landlord t