The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bonafide need for own occupation and the applicability of procedural provisions such as Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were crucial in determining the outcome of the eviction proceedings.

Petitioner is the tenant of a residential building belonging to the first respondent. The landlady applied for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent, and bona fide need for own occupation, for her residence, falling under subsections (2) and (3) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). Her case was that she was now residing with her daughter in the absence of any other house of her own in Cannanore, where this building was situate. The building occupied by the daughter belonged to the Communist Party of India, and a petition r.c.p.no.141 of 1983 was pending in the Rent Control court, Cannanore for eviction of the daughter. The landlady therefore needed the petition schedule building for her occupation, and the petition was accordingly laid for eviction on the grounds mentioned above,.

2. The petitioner contested the claim, inter alia with the plea that the landlady had earlier filed a petition R.C.P.No.41 of 1980 for eviction, which was dismissed for default. The bonafides of the landlady's claim was therefore suspect. She was an affluent person, whose children, except a daughter, were all in Canada. She herself had been out of Cannanore for long, since her marriage in 1935, and was not therefore likely to occupy the building in question, which was not suited for her requirements.

3. All the three authorities found that the petitioner has kept rent in arrear from March 1,1970 and ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under S.11(2). Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail this concurrent finding in any manner. The order of eviction under S.11(2) of the Act has therefore to be confirmed.

4. Regarding bonafide need, the Rent Control Court was of the opinion that first respondent was not likely to occupy the building. She had been residing outside Cannanore since 1935, and all her sons were abroad. None of her children was going to stay with her. She cannot live in the building with all "the discomforts and sufferings of a lonely life in her old age when she was warmly welcomed by her prosperous children employed abroad". Bonafides was therefore found against, and the application for eviction under S.11(3) rejected.

5. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court however chose to differ. The Appellate Authority noted that the landlady did not have any other house in Cannanore which she could occupy. She was staving with her daughter in the town. A petition for eviction was pending against the daughter. Her daughter's landlord was the Communist Party of India and the genuineness of that application for eviction could not be doubted. The dismissal of the earlier application R.C.P.No.41 of 1980 did not warrant the conclusion that the landlady had settled down in a foreign country. The landlady's need and its bonafides were therefore upheld. The appeal was allowed ordering eviction on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation.

6. This decision of the Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Revisional Court functioning under S.20 of the Act after examination of the materials and the evidence available in the case.

7. The findings are concurrent that the first respondent needed the building bonafide for her residence. This finding is based on materials and evidence, and I do not find any reason to differ from the same. Petitioner has a complaint that the Revisional Court has not applied its mind to the question of bonafide need. Perusal of the Revisional Court's order does not however bear this out.

8. This is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. When the finding rendered by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court is supported by materials and the evidence on record, there is really no scope for interference by this court in exercise of the power under Art.227.

9. Counsel for the petitioner raised an alternate plea, that the first respondent is precluded from filing a second application for eviction, having reg