The court emphasized the importance of considering vital documents and avoiding conjectures and surmises in reaching a decision. It highlighted the need for a proper evaluation of evidence and a lawful approach to the legal issues at hand.

Paripoornan, J.

The tenant in R.C.P No. 27 of 1985, Rent Controller, Ernakulam is the revision-petitioner herein. There are two respondents herein. They are the landlords of the building demised to the revision-petitioner/tenant. In this revision, we arc only concerned with the order of eviction in proceedings initiated under S.11(2), 11(3) and 11(4) (i) & (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant had initiated proceedings for fixation of fair rent (R.C.P. No. 189 of 1982) and the landlords had initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant under S. 11(2) of the Act in R.C.P. No.7 of 1983 the above two petitions and R.C P. No. 27 of 1985, from which the present revision arises, were disposed of by a common order by the Rent Controller, dated 10-7-1989. We are not concerned with the legality or regularity of the proceedings in R.C.P.189/82 or R.C.P.No. 7/83, in this revision. The Rent Controller dismissed R.C.P. No. 27 of 1985. He found that the landlords/ petitioners failed to exhibit any element of need objectively in support of their plea of vacant possession of the petition schedule building. In other words, the plea of the landlords, that the building is needed bona fide for own occupation, was rejected. Relief under S.11(3) of the Act was negatived. The Rent Controller also held that the landlords are not

entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(4)(i) or S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. The matter was taken in appeal, by the landlords as also by the tenant. The appeal filed by the landlords is R.C.A No. 56 of 1989, preferred against the common order dated 10-7-1989 rendered in R.C.P. No. 27 of 1985. The appeal preferred by the tenant is R.C.A.No. 74 of 1989 against the common order passed in R.C.P.No.189 of 1982. We are concerned in this revision only with the order passed in R.C.A.No. 56 of 1989. The appellate Authority found that no case was made out by the landlords for an order of eviction under S.11(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act. But, the appellate Authority found that the landlords have succeeded in proving that the plaint building is required bona fide for own occupation and so they are entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Now, the only controversy between the parties is as to whether the landlords are entitled to an order of eviction under S.11 (3) of the Act on the ground that the building is required bona fide for own occupation.

2. There are two petitioners in R.C.P. No. 27 of 1985. They are the landlords. The second petitioner was, at the relevant time, in Government service. He was about to retire. The landlords' plea was that their son had studied upto S.S.L.C. He failed for S.S.L.C. in 1983. Even after several attempts, he could not succeed in the examination. The son wanted to start a business in provision. The brother of petitioner No.2 is a businessman. He is running a provision shop and a rice depot. He has promised to help the petitioners and their son for conducting the business. The petitioners need the building for their occupation and for the occupation of their son to start a business. They have no other building to meet the need. The respondent/ tenant is a rich man. He does not depend upon the income from the business in the rented building as the source of his livelihood. He could get a alternate building without any difficulty. The tenant, in his objections, referred to the other proceedings between the landlords and the tenant, and stated that the conduct of the petitioners/ landlords showed that they were bent upon harassing the tenant for evicting him from the building. The tenant also specifically pleaded that the petitioners' son is not capable of starling any business as alleged, the petitioners have no idea at all to start any business in the petition schedule building and the need stated in the petition is without any bona fides. Capacity and ability of the petitioners and their son to run the business were also questioned. It w