Sankarasubban, J.

Revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P.No.147 of 1991 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thalasserry. The petition for eviction was filed by the landlady under Section 11(2)(a)(b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act").

2. According to the petitioner, the petition schedule building was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.140/- on the strength of a "kaichit" dated 27.10.1989. It was stated that the rent upto 27.10.1989 had been paid. It is further alleged that the landlady's husband was in bonafide need of starting a grocery business in the petition schedule building in order to enable him to earn a decent living. Her husband who was earlier employed in Abu Dhabi has returned to India six years ago. He has no other building in his possession and is dependent on the landlady for the building.

3. In the counter statement, it was contended by the revision petitioner that the alleged need is not true or genuine and the landlady's husband being very affluent was not in need of any such building and that he was looking after his estate. The need has been set up as a pretext to evict the petitioner who is eking out his livelihood from the meager income that he derives from the business which is being carried on in the petition schedule building. It was further contended that even assuming such a need existed there were other building available with the landlady. It was further contended that the petitioner was solely depending on the income from the furniture business and there was no other building available in the locality. Further, it was stated that it was because the tenant refused to enhance the rent that the petition has been filed.

4. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the landlady. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act.

5. Pleadings in the petition will show that the husband of the landlady had returned from Abu Dhabi six years ago. The Rent Control Court found that the bonafide need was established and hence allowed eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal as R.C.A. No.28 of 1993 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. Pending the appeal, the landlady's husband died. It was for her husband that the bonafide need was made. This was brought to the notice of the court. It was contended that the proceedings had abated. But the appellate court did not accept this contention and dismissed the appeal. It is against that the present revision is filed.

6. The main question urged before this Court is that the proceedings are abated with the death of the husband of the landlady. The Rent Control Petition was filed for bonafide need of the landlady's husband. The landlady's husband was employed in Abu Dhabi and he retired 6 years ago and he was depending on the meager income derived from his prior earnings. He wanted to start a grocery shop. He was depending on the landlady for the facility of the building. The above averments will show that the husband of the landlady was in need of the building. It was not for the purpose of the family. If that be so, the proceedings cannot be continued. On the other hand, what was contended by the landlady is that the need was bonafide, because according to her, the family needed more income and it can be derived only by resorting to some other business.

7. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

8. It is true that there is a catena of decision showing that in case where a bonafide need comes to an end during the pendency of the proceedings, the petition lapses. So also, if the order of eviction has become final on the ground of bonafide, execution is not barred. In this case the order of eviction has not become final, since the appeal was pending. In Shantilal Thak