The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of genuine bona fide need in eviction cases under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the relevance of the petitioner's current residence and property ownership in assessing the claimed need.

Manoharan, J.

Appellant in R.C.A. 62 of 1989,114 of 1989,17 of 1989,84 of 1989 and 5 i of 1989 is the petitioner in these revision petitions. The said appeals respectively were against the orders in R.C.P. 178 of 1983,175 of 1983,176 of 1983,177 of 1983 and R.C.P. 173 of 1983 filed by the revision petitioner for eviction of the tenant from five rooms in a double storeyed building having three rooms in the first floor and six rooms in the ground floor.

2. The five rooms involved in these revision petitions were let out to the respective respondents by the predecessor of the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner alleged that the building belonged to his maternal grand father OLikkal Pothen Malhew who let out one room each to the respondent in the respective revision petitions. According to the petitioner the said rooms were let out for their residence. Olikkal Pothen Malhew executed Ext. Al gift deed in favour of the revision petitioner. Respondent in R.C.P. 175 of 1983 is in possession of a room on an' agreement to pay Rs. 40/pcr month. Rent for the room in R.C.P. 173 of 1983 is Rs 75/-, R.40/- for the room in R.C.P. 177 of 1983, and Rs. 80/- each for the rooms in R.C.P. 178 of 1983 and 176 of 1983.

3. The common ground for eviction was, S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short 'the act). Revision petitioner alleged, he bona fide needs the building for his own residence; he contended, he has no other building to reside. In R.C.P. 173 of 1983 and 178 of 1983 eviction was sought under S.11(2)(b) also on the ground that those respondents kept arrears and inspite of demand neither have they paid the arrears nor have tendered the same. There is yet another ground in R.C.P. 173 of 1983; petitioner alleged, the room was sub let without his consent and hence he is entitled to eviction under S.11(4)(1) of the Act also.

4. Respondents in their objections contended that, the revision petitioner is not the landlord. They questioned, the validity of Ext. Al and denied the claim of eviction on the ground of bona fide need. Respondent in R.C.P. 173 of 1983 denied the alleged sub letting. Respondent in R.C.P. 176 of 1983 and 177 of 1983 also contended that, they are conducting business in the said rooms and that they are entitled to the protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.

5. Petitioner got himself examined as PW-1. He also examined PW-2, an independent witness.

Respondent in R.C.P. 173 of 1983 was examined as rw-1, second respondent in R.C.P. 178 of 1983 was examined as RW-2, respondent in R.C.P. 177 of 1983 got himself examined as Rw-3, respondent in R.C.P. 1757 of 1983 was examined as Rw-4 and respondent in R.C.P. 176 of 1983 was examined as Rw-5. Revision petitioner produced Exts. A1 to A-21 and respondents produced Exts. B1 to B4. Two commissions were issued; they filed Exts. C1 and C2 reports.

6. Learned Rent Controller by a common order allowed eviction of the Respondent in R.C.P. 173/1983 under S.11(2)(b) of the Act; the other grounds were found against, consequently the rest of the petitions were dismissed. Against the said order of the Rent Controller petitioner preferred the aforesaid appeals, which were also dismissed by the appellate authority by a common judgment. These revisions are directed against the said judgment of the appellate authority.

7. Before us the only point urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that the revision petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Paragraph 13 of the judgment of the appellate authority would show, before the appellate authority also the ground of bona fide need alone was urged.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended, both the authorities went wrong in thinking that the revision petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the fact that the wife of the petitioner has constructed a building an