K.T.SANKARAN, J.

The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The principal contention raised by the tenant in this Revision isthat the landlord has not pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and that there is suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on the business, in order to deny to the tenant the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the tenant, lack of necessary pleading in this behalf in the Rent Control Petition would have the effect of taking away the burden of proof on the tenant to prove the ingredients of the 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3). The petitioner also contends that the courts below have not properly considered the pleadings and evidence in the case and the contention of the tenant that the landlord has let out another room to a relative within a short period before the filing of the Rent Control Petition. The tenant also raised a contention that the landlords are residing in Bangalore and the need put forward is a ruse to evict the tenant.

3. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition. Another Rent Control Petition filed by the same petitioners in respect of the adjoining room was also tried along with the present Rent Control Petition. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court.

4. The petition schedule building was let out to the tenant in 1994 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,100/-. The bona fide need put forward is that the third petitioner in the R.C.P. requires the building for conducting business in flooring materials including granite and ceramic tiles. For that purpose, the petition schedule room and the adjoining room are required. The third petitioner has passed the Pre-degree course. At the time of filing the petition, he was studying for B.Com. He was attending to the office and show-room of Sri.Praveen Gattani at Bangalore, who conducts business in flooring materials. The third petitioner has thus gained sufficient experience. The petitioners in the R.C.P. contended that they have no other building in their possession at Kottayam, that the respondent/tenant has other business and that other buildings are also available in the locality for accommodating the business of the tenant.

5. The tenant disputed the bona fide need and he contended that it is only a ruse to evict him. The petitioners in the R.C.P. are residing at Bangalore. They have no intention to settle at Kottayam. The third petitioner is a student. His case that he was attending the office and show-room of Sri.Praveen Gattani is not correct. The petition schedule building is used as a godown by the tenant. The only source of income of the tenant is from the business carried on in the petition schedule building. There is no suitable building available in the locality to accommodate the business. The intention of the petitioners is to sell the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Petition was filed since the respondent did not heed to the demand for payment of exorbitant rent.

.6. Beforethe Rent Control Court, petitioners 1 and 3 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. Ext.A1 certificate issued by Sri.Praveen Gattani and Ext.A2 certificate issued by Sapphire Granites to show that the third petitioner had undergone training in the business concerned, were relied on by the courts below. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the petitioners intend to come back to Kottayam was believed.

.The courts below took note of the fact that the third petitioner is the only male member in the family and that the