Radhakrishnan, J.

Can a rent control petition filed under Sec. 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 be rejected placing reliance on certain subsequent events brought out in the cross-examination without amendment of the pleadings by the tenant is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Rent Control petition was filed on 17-6-1996 under Sec. 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 contending that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the landlord’s son. Landlord’s son has completed a technical course from the Thyagaraja Poly Technic and he intends to start a refrigeration service and repairing unit in the petition schedule premises. Landlord is financially sound to purchase the machinery and tools to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit for his son. Son is unemployed, but has the requisite qualification and experience to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit.

3. Tenant contended that the attempt of the landlord is only a ruse to evict him. Further it was pointed out by the tenant that he is conducting a medical shop and that the need of the son is not genuine. Further landlord has got other buildings for conducting the business of his son. Tenant also pleaded that he is solely depending upon the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and no other buildings are available in the locality. Landlord in order to establish his case got himself examined as PW2. His son was examined as PW1. A commission was taken out. He was examined as PW3. Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced on the side of the landlord. Tenant got himself examined as RW-1 and produced Exts.B1 to B8 documents. C1 is the commission report.

4. The Rent Control Court found that the landlord’s son has completed his pre-degree and a technical course from the Thyagaraja Polytechnic at Alagappa Nagar, Thrissur in the field of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. It was also noticed that by Ext.A2 he has gained two years experience from S.S.Electricals and Musicals and that he is unemployed. Rent Control Court though found that the above facts as correct placed reliance upon certain facts brought out in cross-examination of PW1 and held that the omission to state those facts in the rent control petition is fatal to a plea of bonafides. Rent Control Court also took the view that the facts brought out in the cross-examination of PW1 are relevant facts, which the landlord ought to have disclosed in the rent control petition. Rent Control Court concluded as follows:

“It is true that PW1 had completed his predegree and a technical course from the Thyagaraja Polytechnic at Alagappa Nagar in Thrissur District in the field of Air Condition and Refrigeration. Ext.A1 is the certificate obtained by him from the Thyagaraja Polytechnic, Alagappa Nagar. It is also evident from Ext.A2 that he obtained 2 years experience from S.S.Electricals and Musicals and was an unemployed fellow. But it is brought out in evidence that he is now at Muscat. According to him he is a trainee in Ford Car Company, Ruwi in Muscat. It is also disclosed from his evidence that the respondent’s brother-in-law is also employed in the same company. But the RW1’s case discloses that the respondent’s son was employed in the workshop for a long time and now left for Muscat and is employed as a mechanic in the Ford Car Company. According to his assertions the respondent’s son is an employee in a car company for the last 3 years and the submission made by PW1 that he is a trainee is not a correct one. If the respondent’s son is a trainee it can be proved by documentary evidence. His passport, Visa and other records may reveal about the employment of the petitioner’s son. Such documents can be produced by the petitioner so as to convince the court that he is only a trainee in the Ford Car Company. Normally the visas issued will only be not more than a term of 3 years. So that no company in gulf country will take persons for training. So there is considerable