P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

This revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is by a tenant who was sought to be evicted by his landlord under S.11(3) of the Act on the ground that the landlord needed the building for bonafide occupation by his son, who was dependent on him, for starting a trade. The tenant in addition to denying the bonafide need set up claimed that he could not be evicted from this non-residential building on the ground of bonafide need under S.11(3) of the Act since he was entitled to the protection of S.11(17) of the Act. He had also raised a claim that he was entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act The Rent Controller and the appellate authority having found that the bonafide need alleged by the landlord was established, that the tenant had failed to show that he was entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act or to show that he was entitled to the protection of S.11(17) of the Act, ordered eviction. This is questioned before us in this revision on the basis that the decision of the appellate authority is illegal, irregular and improper and calls for interference by this court in revision.

2. The facts are not in serious dispute. The building, a non-residential one, a shop room was let out to the father of the revision petitioner one Appu under Ext. B22 rent deed dated 14.10.1933. The lessor was the predecessor of the present landlord. The term of the lease was three months. The rent payable was Rs. 47-per month. The rent was subsequently enhanced and Appu, the tenant continued in occupation. His occupation was never terminated. Appu died in the year 1987. Appu had executed a will bequeathing his tenancy right in favour of some of his heirs including the tenant The other legatees released their rights by way of a registered deed in favour of the present tenant, one of the heirs of Appu. The person on whom the rights of the original landlord Asiya Umma devolved and the present tenant, one of the heirs of the original tenant Appu, executed another lease deed Ext. A2 on 6.4.1989. Thereunder, the tenant was to continue in occupation as a tenant on agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 150/- per month to the landlord. The term of the lease was again three months. Thus the devolution of the tenancy right which originally belonged to Appu, on the present tenant was accepted and recognised by the landlord with an obligation on the part of the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. It was while the tenant was thus holding the building, that the landlord filed the application for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The application for eviction was filed on 25.7.1996.

3. Though i n the application for eviction a claim was also made under S.11 (2) of the Act, the claim thereunder was rejected by the Rent Controller and the same was not pursued by the landlord. We are therefore not concerned with that claim in this Revision.

4. In support of his claim for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act the landlord pleaded that he required the petition schedule building bonafide for the occupation of his son and power of attorney holder Fayad Abdul Hamid Fayad had completed his education and he had no income or source of livelihood. He was dependent on the landlord. He could not sit idle. There was no chance of his getting a job in Government service or in private firms based on the educational qualification he had. Fayad did not want to depend upon his parents for his livelihood. He wanted to start a stationery business on his own in the petition schedule building. The landlord was ready to support his son financially to start the business. Neither the landlord nor his son Fayad had possession of any vacant building in which they could start the stationery business. The tenant was not doing any serious business in the petition schedule building. The main income of the tenant was from other sources. A number of vacant buildings were a