This C.R.P. is filed challenging the order of the District Court, Thodupuzha in R.C.R.P. 3/98. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under S.11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The need alleged was for the purpose of conducting a business for the son-in-law of the landlord. The tenant filed a written statement denying the need alleged. He further contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to S.11 (3) of the Act namely, that he was depending for his livelihood on the business which was conducted in the building and that there was no other alternate building available. When the R.C.P. came up for trial, the parties filed a compromise petition. The tenant admitted the bonafide need and the landlord admitted the non-availability of the alternate building and also the hardship of the tenant. As per the compromise petition, the tenant was given five years' time to vacate the premises. On the basis of the compromise petition, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction.

2. After the period fixed in the compromise was over, the landlord file