M. Ramachandran, J.

R.C.P.No.6 of 1996 had been filed before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad and an order has been passed therein on 31.1.1997, whereunder it had been held that the claim put in by the landlord for eviction under Ss.11(2)(b),11(3) and 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was not sustainable. The Court had found that there were no arrears of rent payable and there was no bona fide need substantiated by the landlord as coming under S.11(3) of the Act. It was also held that the invocation of S.11(7) was not warranted. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Palakkad (the Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No.36 of 1997, held that the findings entered by the Rent Control Court were not sustainable and had found that on all the three grounds the landlord was entitled to get the eviction, as prayed for. The revision had come to be filed in the aforesaid context. We may briefly refer to the essential facts.

2. The landlord had come across possession of certain properties, including the scheduled properties, as inherited from his father and from 1.12.1993. He was also recognised as the Manager of an aided school, which was being housed there. The scheduled properties were situated in the compound. It is the admitted case that the same had been in the occupation of the tenant at least from about 1964. The tenant was conducting a tea shop business on a monthly rent of Rs.13/-. After the assumption of office as Manager, the landlord had addressed the tenant by Ext.Al notice on 24.8.1995 requiring him to give vacant possession of the building. The reason pointed out was that the tea shop was causing problems to the inmates of the school by discharging filthy water; that there were arrears of rent payable from 1.1.1994 and also that the building was required for providing accommodation to the teachers of the school as a rest room.

3. Since by Ext.A2 reply notice, the tenant had refuted the allegations and expressed his disinclination to vacate the premises, the Rent Control Petition came to be filed. Evidence adduced consisted of Ext.Al to A5, and the testimony of the landlord and the Headmaster of the school, on the side of the landlord, Exts.Bl to B2 as also the evidence of the tenant and RW2, a broker, who had dealings in real estates came from the counter-petitioner. The Advocate Commissioner Sri.Mathew C.Thomas also had tendered evidence.

4. The Rent Control Court held that it was a case where the tenant was always prepared to tender the rent and there was refusal on the part of the landlord to accept the rent, which constrained him to send the rent by Money Order, and therefore there was no arrears of rent justifying eviction. It was further held that the need pointed out under S.11(3) for accommodating the teachers in a proper resting room could not amount to "own occupation" as coming under S.11(3) of the Act and therefore the demand was not sustainable. It was further held that since the educational institution was not shown as the owner of the properties concerned, application under S.11 (7) of the Act would not have been sustainable, it being a special provision to be applied only in given circumstances.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.Krishna Prasad submits that the Appellate Court had erred in entering into such findings on all the three points. Perhaps he may be correct when he submits that the decision could not have been supportable on the plea that there were arrears of rent. Likewise, the finding of the Appellate Authority that S.11(7) was to be applied in favour of the landlord also appears to be incorrect, on the face of the records.

6. There is clear evidence to indicate that the tenant had been paying rent upto date until such time the present landlord had come to possession. He had been paying the Municipal taxes in respect of the building and had also been offering rent deducting such payments. When it was found that the landlord was not prepared to accept t