The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the concept of 'bona fide need of the landlord' and highlighted that the mere refusal of the tenant to increase the rent demanded by the landlord does not necessarily indicate mala fides on the part of the landlord.

Over lour decades passed since a building situated on a commercial street at Kozhikode (Sweet Meet Street) was rented out to the petitioner. He has been paying a rent of Rs. 70/- per month from the beginning without increasing the rate despite repeated requests of the landlord. Eventually an application for eviction was filed by the land lord on certain grounds under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the act), main among which is the ground that he needs the building to start his own business. Petitioner (tenant) adopted different defences to resist the claim for eviction. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the application, the appellate Authority allowed it on the ground under S.11(3) of the Act and the District Judge, in revision, did not interfere. Hence, petitioner has filed this original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. Landlord's case, as found by the authorities below, is that the building was let out in 1951 on a rent of Rs. 70/- per month, and petitioner was conducting initially stationery business in the building and later a medical shop under the name "Janatha Medicals". The landlord was residing in Thiruchirapally where he was conducting a Radio Institute, but he went to Kozhikode as his ancestral home is at Chalappuram (in Kozhikode) and settled down there. Rent Control Court did not uphold the bona fides of landlord's claim to have this building for his own use. But the appellate Authority, after finding that landlord's claim is bona fide, proceeded further and found that petitioner is not entitled to the benefits envisaged in the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.

3. Petitioner stoutly disputed landlord's case that the latter had settled clown at Kozhikode. The landlord produced, at the appellate stage, a ration card (marked as Ext. A.50 by the appellate authority) to substantiate his contention that he has already started residing at Kozhikode. appellate Authority in reversal of the finding of the Rent Control Court, accepted landlord's case that he left Thiruchirappally for good and settled down at Kozhikode and that he bona fide requires the building to house the institute proposed by him. This view was confirmed by the District Judge in revision.

4. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application should have been dismissed as the same was filed by only one of the co-owners of the building without junction of other co-owners. In support of the said contention, reference was made to the decision in Kunhalu v. Baputty (1991 (2) KLT598). This contention does not merit acceptance since it is well nigh settled that one co-owner without junction of other co-owners can maintain an action for eviction of the tenant (vide Sri Ram Pasricha Jagannath - AIR 1976 SC 2335; Kanta Goely. B.P. Pathak-AIR 197" 1599 and Krishnan Nair v. Lakshmi Amma -1986 KLT 558). The observations made by the learned single judge in Kunhalu's case were considered in the light of the above Supreme Court decisions and this Court in judgment dated 24-4-1992 (in O.P.4319/92) has made it clear that those observations in Kunhalu's case are only obiter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner complained that appellate Authority ought not have admitted Ext. A50 at the appellate stage without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce counter evidence thereto. But, neither the appellate Authority nor the District Court in revision has relied on Ext. A50. Hence the admission of Ext. A50 at the appellate stage did not prejudice the petitioner.

6. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bona fides for the landlord's plea since it is admitted that the tenant has refused to give increased rent despite landlord's repeated demands. True, there is enough evidence in this case to show that landlord has been making requests to the petitioner to increase the rent from Rs. 70/- and the petitione