Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

Whether the need of a public institution with the financial, educational and cultural uplift of the members of the institution as its objective to conduct a business for raising funds for achieving the aforementioned objective be termed as a need for the purposes of the institution within the ambit of sub-Section (7) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the question which arises for consideration in this case.

2. The facts having been narrated in detail in the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority need be stated only very briefly. The revision petitioner landlord is the Sree Narayana Dharmasabha at Kodungallur, a society registered under Act 12 of 1955. The building which is the subject matter of the proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act presently occupied by the respondent tenant belongs to the revision petitioner society. Eviction was sought on various grounds under the Rent Control Act including the ground under Sub-Section (7) of Section 11, the only ground which presently survives for consideration. Section 11(7) was invoked on the pleading that the landlord society has been established for propagating ideals of Sreenarayana Guru amongst the public and also for the social, financial and educational uplift of the people who believe in Sreenarayana Guru’s ideals to whom membership in the society is open. The society needs to conduct a business in bicycles and other household articles in the petition schedule building so that the extra income which is expected to be generated out of such business will enable the society to render more service to the members. It was claimed in the rent control petition itself that the society has on 17.6.1994 taken a decision regarding commencement of the proposed business. The counter of the respondent tenant to the extent the same pertained to the eviction ground under Section 11(7) was that the society has no need for getting vacant surrender of the room and that even if the society has decided to start the proposed business in the room the same is only to foist a cause of action for instituting the rent control petition and eviction will result in considerable hardship for the tenant.

3. The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence which consisted to the oral testimony of the then Secretary of the Society as P.W.1 and 7 documents including Ext.A5 bye-laws of the society and Ext.A4 copy of the resolution adopted by the society regarding the commencement of the proposed business found that the nature of the landlord society as a public institution was evident and even admitted. That court also found that all round welfare of the members of the society being the principal, objective of the society conduct of business for augmentation of the income to be utilized for achieving the welfare of the members also will come within the scope of the expression “purposes of the institution” provided under sub-section 7 of Section 11 of the statute. The Rent Control Court also found that even though sub-section (7) of Section 11 is qualified by section 10 and to that extent an enquiry into the bona fides of the claim is certainly warranted, the test of bona fides under sub-Section (7) is less rigorous than under sub-Section (3) of section 11 and the standard of proof required is relatively liberal. Accordingly that court ordered eviction against the tenant under Section 11(7). The Rent Control Appellate Authority however disagreed with the Rent Control Court. That Authority noticed that in order to succeed in a claim under Section 11(7) any public institution will have to establish two facts namely, (1) that there is a need and (2) that the need is for the purposes of the institution. According to the Appellate Authority the claim of the institution that it wants to do business for generating income for achieving its purposes cannot in all cases be branded as a claim for the purposes o