K. Narayana Kurup, J.

Can it be said that a doctor who is running a nursing home is carrying on "business" within the meaning of the expression "trade or business" occurring in the Second Proviso to S.1 ] (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is the question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. This is the 16th year and the 13th round of achequered rent control litigation in which a doctor figures as tenant claiming protection under the Second Proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (for short 'the act) which provides 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.

3. The parties, namely, petitioner and respondent in this Civil Petition are hereinafter referred to as the tenant and landlord respectively.

4. The revision is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.164 of 1992 dated 5-6-1993 confirming the direction of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P. 127 of 1978 to the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building and holding that the tenant is not entitled to the protection provided under the Second Proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.

5. The findings of the Rent Control Court that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and the landlord bonafide needs the building for his own occupation to provide residence and business accommodation to his elderson which as confirmed by the Appellate Authority were not set aside either by the District Court (Revisional authority) or by the High Court. These findings having become final and cone-'usive, the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 164 of 1992 out of which the present revision arises did not go into the correctness of the findings over again and no arguments were advanced before us also by the learned counsel for the tenant regarding the correctness of these findings. Therefore, the only question that remains to be considered is the entitlement of the tenant to the benefit envisaged under the Second

Proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.

6. The facts of the case a re as follows: The landlord filed R.C.P. No. 127 of 1978 for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building under Ss.11(2)(b) (arrears of rent) and 11 (3) (bonafide need) of the Act. The building along with the furniture kept therein were leased out to the tenant by the landlord on 1-3-1974 for a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The tenant was using one of me buildings for his residential purpose and running a nursing home by name "Alpha Nursing Home" in the other building. The landlord filed the above R.C.P. alleging that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from September, 1975 onwards and he bonafide needs both the buildings for providing a separate residence and a business accommodation for his elder son.

7. The tenant resisted the application for eviction contending that there is no arrears of rent and that the plea of bonafide need that the building in question is required for business accommodation for his son is false. The tenant also had a specific case that he is depending solely on the income derived from the hospital business conducted in the petition schedule building and that there is no other suitable building available in the locality for conducting the hospital business.

8. The trial court by its order dated 28-2-1979 in R.C.P. No. 127 of 1978 allowed the Rent Control Petition under Ss.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and ordered eviction. The tenant filed R.C. A. No. 69 of 1979 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 28-9-1979 set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and rema