The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the rent control court under S.11 of the Act, the requirement for eviction under S.11(3), and the tenant's entitlement to resist eviction based on the first and second provisos to sub-section (3) of S.11.

Malimath, CJ.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Ernakulam rendered in R.C.R.P. No. 69 of 1983 on the 31st of October, 1983. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows: The premises in question bears No. 13/41 of the Kothamangalam Municipality. The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner and is the owner of the premises. An application for eviction was filed before the rent control court under Ss.11(3) and 11(4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The description of the court as is seen from the judgment Ext. P1 reads: "In the Court of the Rent Controller, Muvattupuzha". The presiding officer of the rent control court describes himself at the end of the judgment as "Rent Controller". In our opinion this is not correct. The applications for eviction under S.11 can be made to the Rent Control Court. The expression "rent control court", has been defined in S.2(5) of the Act to mean the court constituted under S.3 of the Act, S.3 (1) which is relevant for the purpose reads:

"The Government may, by notification in the gazette, appoint a person who is or is ' qualified to be appointed, a Munsiff to be the Rent Control Court for such local areas as may be specified therein".

It is therefore clear that the court which has jurisdiction to entertain the applications under S.11 is the rent control court constituted under S.3 of the Act. The presiding officer of the rent control court cannot be described as a "Rent Controller". Though our attention was drawn to the use of the expression "Rent Controller" in Rule 7(4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1979 prescribing a fee of Rs. 2/- for applications to the Rent Controller, it has to be pointed out that it is an obvious mistake committed by the rule making authority in describing the rent control court as "Rent Controller", quite contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Ss.2(5), 3 and the notification issued thereunder and S.11 of the Act.

2. Though the petitioners sought eviction under S.11(3) as also under S.11 (4) of the Act, they have confined their case before us to their claim for eviction falling under S.11(3) of the Act. Hence we shall advert to the facts necessary for dealing with the petition under S.11(3) of the Act.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they have three sons, Vijayan, Mahasayan and Das. The first two are unemployed and the third is studying in the I.T.I. The case of the petitioners is that the premises in question is required for providing separate residence for their sons after their marriage and for conducting some trade. They have pleaded that the premises in question is also not adequate for their requirements and that therefore they propose to evict their other tenants also for the same purpose and put up some additional structures to make it a viable unit for the entire family. The 4th respondent - tenant resisted the application, inter alia, contending that the requirement of the petitioners is not bona fide, that he is carrying on a tea shop in the premises which is the main source of his livelihood and that he would be greatly prejudiced if an order of eviction is passed against him. The rent control court by its order Ext. P1 dated 28-6-79 granted eviction under S.11(3) and 11(4) of the Act. The tenant having challenged the said decision before the appellate authority, the appeal was allowed by judgment Ext. P2 dated 13-3-1981 and the case was remanded to the rent control court with a direction to give an opportunity to both the parties of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases. After remand the rent control court by its judgment dated 30-c-1981, Ext. P3, allowed eviction on both the grounds. The tenant's appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the appellate authority by its judgment Ext. P4 dated c-3-1983. The said decision having been challenged by tenant in revis