Mohamed Shafi, J.

The landlord - petitioner in R.C.P. No. 49/1994 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha is the revision petitioner. The R.C.P. is filed seeking eviction of the respondent under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Kerala Act 2/1965).

2. The respondent is conducting a Jewellery business in the petition schedule premises after obtaining the same on rent from the original landlord. The revision petitioner purchased the petition schedule room as per the registered assignment deed dated 31.5.1993 from the original owner. Thereafter respondent attorned to the revision petitioner and has been paying rent. The rent due from 1.6.1993 was in arrears. The revision petitioner needs the petition schedule building to conduct a business of his own. Therefore, the above R.C.P. is filed by him.

3. The respondent resisted the petition contending that he has been in possession of the building prior to the year 1940 and as such he is entitled to the benefit of Section 11(17) of the Kerala Act 2/1965. He has also contended that the claim for eviction of the building on the ground of bona fide need is not at all bona fide and it is only a ruse to evict him. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition . The landlord preferred R.C.A. No. 57/95 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha. During the pendency of the appeal the claim for eviction under Section 11(2) of the Kerala Act 2/65 was not pressed since the respondent paid the entire rent. The appellate court also concurred with the finding of the Rent control Court under Section 11(3) and dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court on that ground. Hence this revision is preferred before this Court by the landlord.

4. The claim for the benefit under Section 11(17) of the Kerala Act 2/65 made by the respondent is negatived by the Rent Control Court finding that the lease was after the year 1940. That finding has become final.

5. The original respondent who was conducting Jewellery business in the petition schedule room died and the respondents herein are his legal representatives. The revision petitioner has sought eviction of the room alleging that he requires the room to conduct a Jewellery business of his own. It is not in dispute that the petition schedule room is situated at Mullackal street in Alappuzha where there are large number of Jewellery shops and is at the entrance to the main road.

6. It is in evidence that the petitioner's father is conducting lucrative business and his mother is conducting a lodge and vacant rooms belonging to the mother of the petitioner are available at Thondankulangara near their residential house. It is also in evidence that vacant rooms are available in the first floor of the building wherein the petition schedule shop room is situated in the ground floor and the mother of the revision petitioner is conducting a lodge. The Rent Control Court found that since there are vacant rooms available for the revision petitioner to conduct the trade, his claim for eviction of the petition schedule room under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Act 2/65 is not bona fide. It is also found that as the revision petitioner is assisting his father in the business, he being the only son of the parents who are engaged in vast business, there is no need for him to start a new business of his own in the petition schedule premises. The above findings of the Rent control Court are endorsed by the Appellate Authority.

7. The counsel for the revision petitioner argued that as it is common case that the petition schedule building is situated at the Mullackal Street in Alappuzha which is a very important locality wherein large number of Jewelleries are being conducted, the contention of the respondent and the findings of the authorities below that the revision petitioner can start his independent Jewellery business in the rooms available at Thondankulangara near his residential