Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The present owner of the building, 2nd petitioner before the Rent Control Court and the other legal heirs of his father, 1st petitioner before the Rent Control Court are the revision petitioners. The parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant or by their ranks before the Rent Control Court. The schedule building is one of the two rooms in the ground floor of a double storeyed building situated on the principal junction of Perambra, a small town in Malabar. The petitioners sought eviction before the Rent Control Court invoking the grounds of arrears of rent [Section 11(2)(b)]. User of building in a manner as to reduce its value and utility [Section 11(4)(ii)], the tenant putting up or acquiring possession of other buildings [11(4)(iii)], cessation of occupation [Section 11(4)(v) and additional accommodation [Section 11(8)] of the Rent Control Act.

2. The Rent Control Court did not grant relief to the petitioner on any of the grounds. That Court even held the rent control petition to be not maintainable in law due to the reason that the gift deed relied on by the 2nd petitioner, the de facto claimant for the ground under Section 11(8) contained a reservation clause under which the 1st petitioner himself was entitled to collect the rent. In appeal by the petitioners, the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the maintainability of the rent control petition was set aside. But all other findings were confirmed. After disposal of the appeal, the 1st petitioner passed away and hence the junction of revision petitioners 2 to 7 to this revision.

3. Heard Sri. K.P. Sudheer, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. R.K. Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the respondent. Lower court records are available for our perusal.

4. The ground of cessation of occupation was not pressed by the petitioners before the Rent Control Court. The ground of arrears of rent was turned down for want of statutory notice. No arguments were addressed before us regarding that ground and also regarding the ground under Sec.11(4)(ii). It was fairly conceded before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the grounds which seriously survived are only the grounds under Seconds 11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965.

5. The landlord’s pleadings regarding the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) were that the respondent has other shop rooms and sites for erection of shops in Perambra Bazaar; he has one shop room in Alankar buildings; he has acquired another shop room and site for erection of shop rooms at a distance 100 yards from a three-road junction; the other shop rooms in his possession are sufficient for his requirements; that evidence regarding the shop rooms possessed by the respondent will be furnished later. These averments were answered by the respondent contending that he does not have any other shop room in Perambra Bazaar; the fact that he has sites convenient for putting up shop rooms is irrelevant; he does not have possession of any room in Alankar buildings and does not own any building at all.

6. The landlord’s pleadings regarding the ground under Section 11(8) roughly were that the 2nd petitioner conducts business in textiles by name super Fabrics in the room adjacent to the schedule room; he has an “essential need” to evict the respondent so as to enable him to expand his textile business. The respondent answered these pleadings by contending that the the 2nd petitioner is already conducting textile business in the room just on the north of the schedule room; that the two rooms are separated by a concrete wall; that it will be impossible to make use of both these rooms simultaneously; the claim is an experimental one; the petition is the immediate result of strained relationship between the parties on account of a police complaint filed against the landlord by the tenant; the same is without bona fides. He also contended that the income from the schedule room is the main source of