K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether the attempt made by the landlady to sell away the tenanted premises to the tenant during the pendency of the rent control proceedings is fatal to a plea under S.11(3) is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Eviction was sought for by the landlady under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court rejected the ground under S.11(3), however, eviction was ordered under S.11(4)(iii). Landlord filed RCA, 145/02 against the order under S.11(3) and tenant filed RCA. 134/02 against the order under S.11 (4) (iii). Both the appeals were heard by the Appellate Authority and a common judgment was rendered. Appeal filed by the landlord was allowed and the appeal preferred by the-tenant was rejected.

3. The tenant is conducting a bakery by name Famous Bakery in the tenanted premises from 1984 onwards on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/-. Tenanted premises originally belonged to the father of the landlady. She became the owner by virtue of settlement deed No. 1102/97 of SRO Maradu. Landlady required the tenanted premises for the purpose of conducting a provision store. Landlady's husband who is experienced in that line of business would help her for the conduct of business. Landlady issued lawyer notice Ext.A5 on 2.9.1988 demanding surrender of the tenanted premises for the purpose of conducting business. Later she sent another lawyer notice A2 dated 19.1.2000 and requested the tenant to surrender the premises. She has also claimed eviction under S.11(4) (iii) since tenant has acquired another building in the same locality.

4. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. It was pointed out there is inconsistency in the need urged in the two notices and consequently there is no bona fides in the plea. Further it was also stated after the issuance of first notice there was a demand for hike in rent which was not agreed to by the tenant, consequently second notice was issued. Further it is also pointed out while the rent control proceedings was pending attempts were made by father of the landlady to sell away the property to the tenant and consequently it was contended that there is no bona fides in the plea. Tenant also pointed out that he has not purchased any property subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition. In any view the property is not in the possession of the tenant, but in the occupation of his son. Landlady's husband was examined as PW.I and PWs.2 and 3 were also examined on the side of the landlady and produced A1 to A13 documents. Tenant got himself examined as RW.1. RW.2 was also examined on the side of the tenant. BI to B7 documents were produced on the side of the tenant. C1 is the commission report and Cl(a) is the sketch.

5. We may first examine whether the attempt made by the landlady's father to sell away the tenanted premises to the tenant during the pendency of the rent control proceedings would defeat the plea of bona fides. The crucial date to decide the question as to whether the need urged by the landlady is genuine or not is the date of filing of the rent control petition. Rent Control Petition was filed in the year 2000. Counsel for the tenant submitted though landlady is the owner of the tenanted premises her father tried to sell away the property at her instance and received Rs. 10,0007- from the tenant. To prove the said transaction tenant examined RW.2, President of the Palarivattom Unit of Vyapari Vyavasai Aekopana Samithi who produced XI dated 25.3.2002 which is alleged to have been issued by the father of the landlady to the tenant.

6. We are of the view even if such a proposal was originated from the side of the landlady that itself would not show there is no bona fides in the plea. During the pendency of the rent control proceedings if tenant makes an attractive offer so as to subdue the bona fide need the Rent Control Petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the landlady was als