N. Krishnan Nair, J.

The landlord in R.C.P.23/1990 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed the petition for eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the scheduled building under Ss.11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 122/1991 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Rent Control Appellate Authority by the impugned order set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and remitted the matter back to the court below for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the landlord has come up with this appeal.

2. The petition scheduled building forms part of a line building belonging to the revision petitioner. The respondent is in occupation of the building as a tenant with effect from 1982. According to the landlord initially, the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per mensem and it was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 250/- with effect from September, 1986. Alleging that the tenant kept the rent in arrears since 1986 and the building is

bonafide required for occupation of the revision petitioner's mother-in-law and her two sons, the petition was filed on the grounds under Ss.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The respondent/ tenant resisted the petition contending that the need urged by the landlord is not genuine. The rate of rent was also disputed. According to the respondent, the amount of rent fixed was Rs. 100/- per month from 1982 onwards which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 150/- per month. It was also contended by the respondent that the rent had been paid till December, 1989.

3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions. The evidence consists of the depositions of PW1 to PW3 and CW1, Exts. Al to A4, B1 to B5 and Ext. Cl. On an elaborate consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the respondent defaulted in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- from July, 1986 till December, 1989. The Rent Control Court also found that the need urged by the landlord is genuine. But, the Appellate Authority found that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rate of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month is without any basis. On the basis of the representation made by the counsel for the respondent herein before the Appellate Authority that the mother-in-law of the petitioner is no more, the Appellate Authority remitted the matter back to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is clearly-illegal and cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Control Court without any reason. He further contended that the observation of the Appellate Authority that no reason is given by the Rent Control Court as to the fixation of the rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month is baseless. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the fact that the mother-in-law of the revision petitioner is no more is also no ground to remit the case back to the Rent Control Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Appellate Authority and urged that there is no ground for interference.

5. The question arising for consideration is whether the impugned order of remand is sustainable. On a consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the Appellate Authority should not have interfered with the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rate of rent was Rs, 150/- per month. According to the landlord, initially, the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per mensem and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs. 250/- with effect from September, 1986. On the other hand, the respondent would contend t