Radhakrishnan, J.

The object and purpose of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is to regulate the leasing of the buildings, prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants and for the control of rents. The provisions of the Rent Control Act has given an overriding effect by employing the non obstante clause in section 11 of the Act. Section 11 (4) (iii) has been enacted so as to enable a landlord to seek eviction. Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority in the instant case ordered eviction on the ground that the tenant is already having in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement.

2. Counsel appearing for the tenant Sri. P. V. Mohanan submitted that the courts below have misunderstood the scope and ambit of Section 11(4) (iii) and consequently reached an erroneous conclusion and therefore liable to be interfered with under Section 20 of the Act. This Bench in Pakran v. Kunhiraman Nambiar, 2004(1) KLT 824 held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 is wider than the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 CPC. We may therefore examine whether the courts below have correctly applied Section 11(4) (iii) in the facts of this case. Section 11(4) (iii) contemplates three situations where the landlord could successfully maintain a petition for eviction. If the tenant has come into possession of a building before or after commencement of the tenancy which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village and continued to be in his possession on the date of filing of the petition the landlord could seek an order for eviction section 11(4) (iii). So also if the tenant after the commencement of the tenancy acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village and continues to be in possession on the date of filing of the application that is also a ground available for eviction to the landlord. Landlord could seek eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) even if the tenanted building is not bona fide required for his own occupation or for additional accommodation. The underlying object of the provision is that tenant shall not keep unto himself so many tenanted premises lest there will be scarcity of accommodation for the needy tenants. Burden of proving that the tenant has in his possession of a building and continues to be in possession of that building or has put up a building is on the landlord. Landlord has also to establish prima facie that the building which is in the possession of the tenant is reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirement. The tenant can disprove the same by establishing that he is not in possession of the building on the date of the application and if at all he is in possession that is not reasonably sufficient for his requirement. The court has to weigh the evidence adduced by the landlord and tenant and render a finding as to whether the tenant is in possession of a building which is reasonably sufficient for the requirement on the date of filing of the petition. However, in a given case the tenant can even explain that though he has put up a building the circumstances are such that he cannot occupy the same. Construction of building availing of loan from financial institution is quite common and unless tenant gets a reasonable return it will not be possible to repay the loan amount. In such circumstances the tenant may rent out the building, so that he can repay the loan. Tenant may in a given case put up building after availing loan from prospective buyers or even from prospective tenants, so that the mere fact that tenant has put up a building is not sufficient to show that he can repay the loan. Tenant may in a given case put up building after availing loan from prospective tenants, so that he is in possession so as to occupy the same without any hindrance. However, the onus is on the tenant to show the circumstances which sta