Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in RCA 67/2002 on the files of the Vth Addl. District Court, Ernakulam and the counter petitioner in RCP 52/1999 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The Rent Control Petition was filed for eviction under sec. 11 (3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the Act). The petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court on all the grounds. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller under sec. 11(3) and confirmed the order under sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Appellate Authority also noted that the ground under sec. 11(4)(ii) though raised was not considered, since it was not pressed. This revision petition was filed by the tenant being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under sec. 11(3) of the Act. The parties are hereafter referred to as the landlord and the tenant.

2. The brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as follows:

The landlord's grandfather who was the original landlord let out the petition schedule building to the tenant on 1.10.1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.275/-. The period of lease was for two years. After the death of the

grandfather and the landlord's father, the present landlord became the owner of the petition schedule building by virtue of the partition deed dated 1.3.1997. It is averred in the petition for eviction that the landlord is unemployed with no permanent source of income to meet his family requirements. Therefore he has decided to start a business in computer software development, exports and services. For that purpose a firm by name "M/s. Informatics India" was constituted and registered. The landlord, who is a MCA Degree holder, has got experience in the said field. The landlord intends to re-construct the petition schedule building for the purpose of starting a business in computer software developments since the petition schedule building is very old, dilapidated and most unsuitable for his business purpose.

3. The landlord further averred that the tenant is conducting another business in the name and style "M/s. Nidhi Electricals" and the said business is accommodated in a building which is situated very near to the petition schedule building. The tenant has sublet the tenanted premises to one George and the said Geoge is presently running the business in the petition schedule building.

4. The revision petitioner/tenant objected the relief’s sought for in the petition for eviction, inter alia, contending that the need alleged is not bona fide, that the petition schedule building nor the locality in which the said building is situated is not suitable for starting a business in computer software development, that the landlord owns and possesses other landed properties suited for the construction of commercial building, that the allegation that he had sublet the building to George is incorrect and that George is only his employee. He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of protection under the second proviso to sec. 11(3). The tenant admitted that he is conducting a business in the name and style "Nidhi Electricals" in another shop situated near the petition schedule building and that the business conducted in that shop is integrally connected with the business activities being carried on in the tenanted premises and therefore the petition schedule building is absolutely essential for the conduct of the said business.

5. The Rent Control Court received in evidence Exts.A1 to A17 on the side of the landlord, Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant and examined the landlord as PW.1 and RWs.1 to 4 as tenant's witnesses. The court also marked Ext.C1 commission report and Ext.X1.

6. The Rent Control Court by order dated 18.12.2001 held that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction under sec. 11(3), 11(4)(i) or 11(4)(ii) and so, the R