Radhakrishnan, J.

Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition holding that there is no bonafides in the plea. However, benefit of the second proviso was denied to the tenant. On appeal by landlord the Appellate Authority found that the plea of the landlord is bonafide and held that the tenant had not established both the ingredients of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3). The appeal was allowed and the tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession.

2. Petition schedule building is an out house with a separate entrance. Landlord along with his wife was residing in the main building situated in the same compound. Original tenant died. Now the present tenant is conducting a money lending business by name “City Finance”. Monthly rent of the building is Res. 75/-. Landlord was away in Bombay in connection with the employment. He retired from service in 1982 and he is occupying the main building along with his wife. Landlord bonafide needs the building for the purpose of conducting an agency business. The business involves storage display and sale of multi volumes