1. Joseph Chakola owned many buildings in Ernakulam, including the one involved in this case. It has three rooms, besides bathroom and latrine; and had been occupied for some time as a residential building. The revision petitioner-co-operative society took one of the rooms on lease in 1964. Years later, Joseph Chakola passed away. Soon thereafter, the building passed hands. It was purchased in 1978 by the respondent herein, referred to by the Rent Controller as "a young man of 31 decently employed". The new landlord intended to get married and "to have separate residence of his own with his wife". The occupants of two rooms appreciated the need; they surrendered the rooms to the landlord. The Society did not, however, yield. The landlord then terminated the tenancy and demanded surrender of the building. The demand went unheeded to. That led to the eviction proceedings

2. Many contentions originally raised are now submerged by the concurrent decisions of the courts below. Only one remains for adjudication by the High Court. That relates to the question: Does the decision of a young man of thirty one, to marry soon and to move to a new establishment, constitute a bona fid