Ramachandran, J.

Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act (District Judge, Trivandrum), by order dated 17-12-2005 in R.C.A.No.43 of 2003 has confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Trivandrum in R.C.P.No.34 of 2002. Eviction is ordered under section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short Rent Control Act). The tenant has come up in revision.

2. The rental arrangement admittedly was in existence for decades. Serious efforts are seen to have been taken for eviction, after a notice issued on 16-05-2002, demanding vacant possession. Scheduled building is a residential house in the heart of Trivandrum City. The landlady had pointed out that she had no other building in Trivandrum. Although she was residing in her own house at Nagercoil, in Tamilnadu, being her native place she wanted to come over to Trivandrum. She had lost interest for Nagercoil, since her husband had passed away and her only child also was no more. The dilapidated building also required to be demolished and reconstructed.

3. The bona fide need, as projected, however had been disputed by the tenant, pointing out that the factual situation presented itself was sufficient to show that it was only a ruse. The idea might have come to the landlady as their personal relations had become sour. It was unthinkable that the landlady wanted to leave her relatives for good and for opting a solitary life. The bereavement spoken of had happened long back. The very claim about reconstruction had been criticized by the tenant stating that the landlady had neither the funds nor any concrete ideas convincing enough.

4. Proof affidavit had been filed by the landlady before the lower authority supplying details, which might have been considered as relevant for substantiating her bona fides. The Commissioner, deputed by the Court, had also been examined. The building permit had been produced as an exhibit. The tenant had examined herself and quite a few documents had been relied on. The rent Control Authority had accepted the evidence of the landlady as credible, and had overruled the objections raised by the tenant. The claim on the strength of arrears of rent, however, was negatived.

5. As referred to earlier, the tenant had not been able to convince the Appellate Authority that the order as above suffered from errors. Sri. S.A. Razzak, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order requires interference of this Court, in exercise of its powers under section 20 of the Rent Control Act. The reason, according to him, is that the lower authorities were oblivious about the requirement of pleadings and any evidence overreaching the pleadings should have been eschewed. The hallmark of a claim was bona fides, and this was lacking all through out, the counsel submits.

6. Mr. Razzak refers to the circumstance pointed out by the landlady, at the time of her evidence which prompted her to think of shifting her residence to Trivandrum. Every one of them are newly invented and the authorities were purposely misled. The course adopted was highly objectionable. The tenant also was a widowed lady, depending on others and unless compelling reasons were there, she should have been permitted to continue, as a shifting would have wilted her life altogether.

7. We had examined the issue in some detail. The plea put in by the landlady was that she wished to shift to Trivandrum at the later stages of her life, since she had now no interest at all at Nagercoil. The inconvenience of a third party was therefore irrelevant. The issue to be examined is as to whether this was a bona fide need or a mere wish, as alleged to prejudice the tenant, and whether she had been guilty of indiscretion by bringing on materials, which had resulted in a repaid and recasting, prejudicing the interests of the opposite side.

8. The landlady had referred to the facilities which were normally available at Trivandrum, namely the proximity of public institutio