Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration is whether the commencement of new business during the pendency of the rent control proceedings would spell out lack of bonafides in a petition under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965.

2. Rent control petition was preferred by the landlord seeking eviction of two tenanted premises for the purpose of conducting business in auto garage, spare parts and a workshop. Tenanted premises is situated in Pookkayil Bazar Junction by the side of Unnial Road. Landlord started other business by name “Siddique Hardwares” in a tenanted premises in Tirur-Tanur Road. Contention was raised by the tenant that by starting another business during the pendency of the rent control proceedings the bonafide need urged by the landlord as far as tenanted premises in concerned stood extinguished.

3. Petition schedule building RCP.4/96 was entrusted to one Aiavi on 1-4-1993. Petition schedule building in RCP. 10/96 was entrusted to one Musthafa on 31-12-1989. Landlord petitioner is in bona fide need of the schedule building to start a business in auto garage spare parts and workshop. Petitioner was working as manager in a spare parts shop at Qatar for 20 years and returned to his native place in September 1995. He has sufficient experience in dealing with spare parts and workshop at Qatar, therefore he could successfully start the said business in his native place. Further, he has also stated that there is no suitable building of his own for starting business. Tenant in both the cases disputed the bona fide need urged by the landlord. It was also stated it is unnecessary for the petitioner to start a business in his native place since he is otherwise well of. Further it was also pointed out that he had already started a hardware business in the name and style “Siddique Hardwares” at Tirur – Tanur Road. Further it was also pointed that the landlord had also let out adjacent rooms to tenants for exorbitant rent, just prior to the issuance of notice and therefore there is no bonafides in the plea. Benefit of second proviso was also claimed by the tenant. Rent Control Court after considering oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide, so also found that the tenants are not entitled to get benefit of second proviso, consequently allowed the petition. Tenants preferred appeals. Appeals were allowed by the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority took the view that the need urged by the landlord has already been met by starting a hardware business in a tenanted premises at Tirur-Tanur Road. Appellate Authority also evaluated the bona fide requirement of the tenant vis-à-vis the landlord on the touchstone of comparative hardship. Appellate Authority also found that the tenant is entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso also. Appellate Authority accepted the contention of the tenant that his ole source of livelihood is the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises. Further Appellate Authority also took the view that the burden is on the landlord to prove that there are vacant premises available in the locality for the tenant to occupy. On the above reasoning’s Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and rejected the petition under Section 11(3). Aggrieved by the same landlord has come up in revision.

4. We have perused the rent control petition, objection as well as the oral and documentary evidence. Landlord has specifically averred that he wants start a business in auto garage, spare parts and workshop. He has also averred that he had sufficient experience in the said line since he was away at Qatar for 20 years. At Qatar he was working as store in charge. While so he was dealing with the business relating to automobile spare parts and other accessories. The fact that he is experienced in dealing with spare parts and accessories cannot therefore be disputed. He therefore cherished a desire to st