Radhakrishnan, J.

Landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11 (4) (i) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court disallowed the claim under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act, but allowed the claim under Section 11(4) (i) of the Act. Fifth respondent before the Rent Control Court, the alleged subleassee, filed appeal R.C.A. No.96 of 2001 before the Appellate Authority against the finding rendered under Section 11(4) (i) of the Act. No appeal was preferred by the landlord against the finding under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. Appellate Authority on facts confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court holding that the original tenant had sublet the premises to fifth respondent, but disallowed the claim placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in A.S.Sulochana v. Dharmalingam (1987 (1) SCC 180) holding that the legal heirs of the tenant cannot be visited with the sin committed by the deceased tenant and hence reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (4)(i) of the Act.

2. Landlord though did not file an appeal against the finding under Section 11(3) raised it as an issue before the Appellate Authority. Rent Control Appellate Authority took the view that even after satisfying the ingredients stipulated in Section 11(3) and the provisos thereunder landlord must further prove that the claim is bonafide. Appellate Authority further found that the landlord has inherited large extent of properties from his father and being the only son, he would not venture into another business. Further Appellate Authority also noticed that the landlord had failed to state that he has got other buildings and that the landlord has failed to show special reasons why those buildings are insufficient for his requirements. Holding so, finding of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) was confirmed and the rent control petition was dismissed. Landlord is aggrieved by the findings entered by the Appellate Authority in this revision.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Chacko (Kumili) took us elaborately through the pleadings, evidence and the law on the point and argued his case ably. Counsel submitted that Appellate Authority has committed a grave error in rejecting the claim under Section 11(4) (i) of the Act, placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in Sulochana’s case, supra (1987 (1) SCC 180). Counsel pointed out that Sulochana’s case, was subsequently overruled in Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam (2004 (4) SCC 794). Counsel submitted on facts both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the fifth respondent in the rent control petition is a sublessee and then should not have rejected the petition. Counsel therefore prayed that the revision be allowed applying the principle laid down by the apex court in Parvinder Singh’s case, supra. Counsel also submitted that the landlord is also entitled to get an order of eviction under section 11 (3) as well. Counsel submitted that the rent control petition was filed on the plea that the landlord is unemployed and intends to start business in readymade garments in a large scale including manufacture, wholesale and distribution. For the said purpose he bonafide required the tenanted room No XI/60. Further it is also his case that landlord is in possession of some space in the upstairs of that building. Counsel submitted that since the upstair portion is kept for the same business, the first proviso to Section 11(3) would not apply and even if it is applied he has shown special reasons. The upstair portion, it is stated, is required for the manufacture and for stocking of garments and the same is not suitable for the display and sale. For the purpose of display and sale the petition schedule room is highly essential and the landlord had no other suitable room or building for that purpose except the scheduled building. Counsel submitted that the lan