1. The appellant, an advocate practising at Calicut, challenges the correctness of the dismissal of his petition, O. P. No. 1472 of 1965. By that petition he challenged, without success, the correctness of an order of eviction from a house of the first respondent of which he was the tenant.

2. The eviction directed by the District Judge, the Revisional Authority, was under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The appellant's contention which has been negatived in the judgment under appeal was that he came within the second proviso to sub-section (3) of that section.

3. Sub-section (3) says that a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. There are four provisos to the sub-section. We are concerned only with the second of those four provisos which reads as follows:

"Provided further 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