The burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish that the new building is not reasonably sufficient for their requirement, and reasonableness should be viewed objectively.

Thomas, J.

Whether the newly put up building of the tenant is reasonably sufficient for his requirement, is essentially a question of fact. If it is answered in the affirmative, it ensures to the benefit of the landlord as he can justifiably request the Rent Control Court for a direction to put him in possession of the premises let out to the tenant. Rent Control appellate authority answered that question in the affirmative and this revision is in challenge of the same.

2. The tenant in this case is a co-operative society (for short 'the society'), dealing in milk supply. Landlord approached the rent control court for eviction on different grounds, among which the two which survive now are those envisaged in Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the act). The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found the latter ground in favour of Qie landlord.

3. In this revision we are at first dealing with the ground which found acceptance concurrently by the two authorities, for, eviction on one ground is enough to equip the landlord to get possession of the building. Bui then a question is raised as to what is the time with reference to which the sufficiency of the new building (for the tenant's requirement) has to be determined. Is it the time of entrustment, or the time of acquisition of the building, or the time of application or the date of order of eviction?

4. Appellate Authority (District Judge) is of the view that the crucial lime is the time of entrustment of the tenanted premises. Learned District Judge observed that "it is now trite law.', that .the crucial question to be considered is whether requirements of the tenant as on the date of entrusting of the petition scheduled building could be accommodated in the new building". All the same, learned District Judge proceeded to consider the question as though the crucial time was the date of order for eviction.

5. Section 11 (4)(iii) of the Act reads thus:

"A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, -

(iii) if the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village;"

6. The time crucial for each ground's consideration may be different. In respect of some of the grounds enumerated in S.11 of the Act the decisive time may be the date of filing the application while in the case of some other grounds the date for consideration may be the date of actual eviction or it may be the time of entrustment in some cases. Even as per clause (iii) the crucial time could be different in accordance with circumstances in each case.

7. Generally, the enquiry is focused on the question whether the ground exists as on the date of hearing of the petition, (vide Harcount v. Lane, 1919-35 TLR 255; Burma v. Woods,194$- KB 111). It was so held by Venkitadri, J. of the Madras High Court in Petroleum Workers' Union v. Mohammed (AIR 1987 Mad. 33). But it is not an invariable rule.

8. A learned single judge of this court has considered the above aspect in Pullwor Rawather v. Devasia Cliacko (1980 KLT 555). He cited the following instances : "Suppose a tenant has in his possession a shop room with an area of 500 sq.ft. but instead of doing business from that room, he takes out another of the same size on rent from a landlord and starts business". Learned Judge observed that in that context going by the language of the section, the landlord could apply the very next day for eviction on the ground that the tenant had an equally good room in this possession at the time of letting and in such a case what should be noted is the nature and size of the tenant's business at the time of letting. M.P. Menon, J. then proceeded to consider the alternative question whether the position be different in a case of subseq