Radhakrishnan, J.

Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sec. 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Schedule building was let out to the respondent tenant before the Rent Control Court for a monthly rent of Rs.1025/-for a period of one year from 9-2-1994. Tenanted building is situated in an important locality of Cochin City at Jews Street. Respondent tenant is conducting a fruit stall in the tenanted premises. Petitioner’s son P.K. Santhosh bonafide requires the schedule building for his own business. Tenant has other building of his own so as to conduct his business. Petitioners therefore sent a notice to the tenant to vacate the premises. Tenant did not vacate the premises. Hence petitioner moved the rent control petition.

2. Tenant resisted the petition stating that the need is not bona fide and that the attempt of the landlord is only to sell away the property after evicting the tenant. Further it was also stated that petitioner’s son does not bona fide require the premises and that he is away in gulf countries. Landlord got himself examined as PW-1. Landlord’s son was examined as PW-2. Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced on the side of the landlord. Ten