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.