Varghese Kalliath, J.

The landlord initiated proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act I' tf->5, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for eviction of the revision petitioner herein. The landlord raised several grounds. Now we are concerned only with the ground under S.11 (3) of the Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioner presented this case very ably.

3. Respondent herein, the landlord claimed eviction for the bonafide need of the building for his own occupation. The building in question is ached. The tenant is using this building as a motor repairing workshop. There is no dispute as to the fact that the landlord's son is a stage carriage operator and he is operating one bus with route permit. The need alleged is that in order to park the bus the building is needed. To strengthen this case of the landlord it has been brought in evidence that parking of the vehicle on the roadside was prevented by the police on several occasions.

4. The tenant contended that the bonafide need alleged is only a pretext to evict the tenant. He also raised the contention that even if the landlord is in a position to establish his bonafide need for own occupation the tenant is entitled to the protection under the second proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act.

5. The rent control court as well as the appellate authority considered the question of bonafide need at great length. They came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material before the court to hold that the landlord has established very satisfactorily the bonafide need alleged in the petition. As regards this question there cannot be any serious dispute and infact counsel for the revision petitioner did not very seriously challenge the concurrent finding of the lower authorities. We make it clear that the counsel did not very seriously challenge the first aspect of the matter, viz, the bonafide need for own occupation claimed by the landlord. But counsel very strenuously argued that the tenant is entitled to protection under the second proviso. The second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act reads thus:

"11(3)

Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business."

This proviso comes into operation when the landlord has established the fact that the landlord needs the building for his own occupation or the occupation of a member of his family dependant on him. When once the landlord satisfies the bonafide need he gets an entitlement for a direction from the rent control court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building but this right is again hedged by the proviso under S.11(3). Of course we are now concerned only with the second proviso. The second proviso takes in two ingredients. The one is a positive ingredient and the other one is expressed in the negative from. The first ingredient is that a tenant who has incurred the liability under S.11 (3) of the Act to surrender the building can establish that he is not liable to surrender the building if he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income deri0.1 from any trade or business carried on in the building in question. The second limb to be proved by the tenant to attract the beneficial proviso is the fact that there is no other suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on the business or trade he was carrying on in the disputed building. We understand the proviso in two distinct parts, one a fact with a positive contend to be proved by the tenant and the other negative fact to be established. In 1976 KLT 1 (Kochappan Pillai v. Chellappan) it was held that both the above aspects have to be proved by the tenant to attract the protection of the provis