1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. Against him the landlord filed BRC.112/64 before the Rent Controller, Alleppey for eviction under S.11 (2), (3) and (4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act-Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act), mainly on the ground that he wants the building for the occupation by his two sons who are dependent on him. The Rent Controller found that the requirement was not bonafide and dismissed the petition; but in appeal the learned appellate authority reversed it, finding that the building is required for the landlord bonafide for the occupation of two of the members of his family who are dependent on him. This order of the appellate authority has been confirmed in revision by the learned District Judge of Alleppey.

2. Two points urged on behalf of the revision petitioner were: (1) the allegation that the landlord requires the building bonafide for the occupation of bis sons is not bonafide; and (2) no notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act as is required of law was issued.

3. On the first point, the argument of the learned counsel is two-fold, viz., that the landlord has a number of other buildings in the town and