Sankaran, J.

The tenant is the revision petitioner. Respondent/landlord filed R.C.P.No.3 of 1997 before the Rent Control Court, Chengannur under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act’) against the petitioner herein. The Rent Control Court held that the bonafide need is not established. With regard to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court held against the tenant. The landlord filed R.C.A.No.7 of 2000 before the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority I, Mavelikkara, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The tenant filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection challenging the finding of the Rent control Court that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Memorandum of Cross Objection filed by the tenant was dismissed. The Rent Control Revision is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

The petition schedule building belonged to Sri. Chacko, the father of the landlord. Sri. Chacko died in 1960. His rights devolved on his widow Sosmma and children including the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. The properties left behind by Sri. Chacko were partitioned as per partition deed dated 25.11.1978. As per the partition deed, the petition schedule building was allotted to the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. It was contended by the landlord that the petition schedule building was entrusted to the tenant in the year 1970 by Sosamma, the mother of the landlord, Sosamma having life interest as per the partition deed of 1978. Sosamma died in the year 1995. The landlord contended that after the death of his mother Sosamma, he became the absolute owner of the petition schedule building. The rent originally fixed was Rs.500/- and it was being enhanced periodically. The present rent is Rs.1,200/- per month.

3. The landlord and his son Cherian were conducting business under the name and style Jaycee Advertisers” in a building complex called Mullassery Estate as per Ext.A1 licence granted by the owner of the building. The owner of that building had taken loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation. As default was committed in repayment of the loan, the Kerala Financial Corporation took over the building under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. Ext.A2 notice was issued by the Kerala Financial Corporation to the present landlord directing him to vacate the room in Mullassery Estate. Obeying the notice, the landlord and his son Cherian vacated that premises. Another son of the landlord, viz. Jacob, had taken room No.120 in Ward No.13 of Chengannur Municipality for the purpose of running a book stall. The landlord contended that he started running his business, viz. “Jaycee Advertisers” in the building taken on rent by his son Jacob on a temporary basis.

4. The landlord further contended that on receipt of Ext.A2 notice issued by the Kerala Financial Corporation, a notice was issued to the tenant requesting him to vacate the petition schedule building. Bonafide need for own occupation of the landlord was put forward in the Rent Control Petition as the ground for eviction, the purpose being for re-commencement of the business of “Jaycee Advertisers”.

5. The tenant contended that the petition schedule building was taken on rent in 1969 by him and his partner Bavunni from the mother of the landlord. The business was being conducted by the tenant and Bavunni on partnership basis. Later, in the same year, Bavunni retired from the partnership and started another business. The partnership was dissolved and the tenant continued the business independently. However, the tenant admitted attornment to the landlord after the partition among the landlord and the other co-owners in the year 1978. The present rate of rent is als