1. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.P. No.13 of 1992 before the Rent Control Court, Aluva, for eviction of the tenant under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short the'Act'. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition for eviction. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed R.C.A. No.2 of 1994 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. By the judgment impugned in this Revision Petition, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Hence this Revision Petition at the instance of the tenant.

2. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent is the owner of the petition schedule building and that the building was let out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rental basis. The revision petitioner is running a department store in the building. The respondent wanted the revision petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule building. Need pleaded is that he wanted to do business in rubber. The revision petitioner resisted the claim of the respondent. He contended that the need set up is not genuine but actuated by the oblique motive of extracting higher rent from the tenant.

3. The evidence consists of the depositions of P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4(a), B1 to B5 and Exts.X1 and X1(a).

4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the eviction ordered by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the respondent-landlord has established the requirements under S.11(3) is so perverse and illegal as to call for interference under S.20 of the Act.

5. The landlord examined himself as P.W.1. He is aged 36. Being a married person having his own family, he has got the responsibility to maintain his wife and three children. He has no independent avocation nor any business of his own. He wants to do the business in rubber in the petition schedule building. His father (P.W.2) has promised to provide necessary finance for that purpose. Their family members are conducting rubber business in partnership basis in which the respondent and his wife are also partners. The respondent is residing very near to the petition schedule building.

6. Revision petitioner stated that the scheduled premises is the ground floor of a two storied building and the first floor is let out by the respondents to an Insurance Company for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-and that the need put forward by the respondent is not bona fide. It is his contention that if the respondent was genuinely in need of premises for conducting the rubber business, he could have utilised the first floor for his own business purposes instead of letting it out to the Insurance Company. It is pointed out that the first floor of the building was lying vacant till the year 1989-90, but no business was started by the respondent-landlord therein. For two reasons the above contention is liable to be rejected. Firstly, that the nature of the business intended to be conducted by the respondent cannot be conveniently done in the first floor and secondly the first floor was let out to the Insurance Company at a time when the respondent had not thought of doing any business of his own in the building. The revision petitioner has no case that at the time of issuing Ext.A3 lawyer notice on 15.4.1992 asking the revision petitioner to vacate the premises, any part of the building was lying vacant. The allegation that the first floor of the building was lying vacant till 1989-90 cannot be a good ground to resist the need put forward by the landlord on 1.4.1992 and subsequently in June, 1992 when the rent control petition was filed. Supreme Court has held in several decisions that the crucial date for deciding as to bona fides of the request of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. (See Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001 (2) SCC 604)). The revision petitioner would suggest that the respondent can utilise a part of his residential house lying adja