Ramachandran Nair, J.

The petitioners herein are the tenants in a petition for eviction filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (herein after referred to as the Act). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction of the premises - a non-residential building – under Section 11

(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority having been dismissed, they have approached this court by filing this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The respondents herein who are the landlords, sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground that their father Rajarathnam wants to start a stationery business and for the said purpose they are in need of the petition schedule building. It was contended that for starting the said business, the petitioners or their father have no other buildings in their possession. The tenants mainly contended that there are no other buildings available in the locality for their occupation if they are evicted and there are no other income also for them. They denied the allegation of subletting. The bonafide need pleaded for conduct of business by the father of the landlords was also disputed.

3. When the matter was heard on an earlier occasion, a Division Bench of this court as per a detailed order dated 9.2005 referred the matter for being considered by a Full Bench. The question that was referred before the Full Bench related to the burden of proof to be discharged by the tenant under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The matter was considered in the light of the decisions of two Division Benches of this court in Kochappan Pillai v. Chellappan (1976 KLT 1) and Sadanandan v. Kunheen (1991 (2) KLT 628). The Full Bench answered the reference as per order dated 17.2006 and thus the matter has come back for being heard on the merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly raised two contentions: Firstly, that the claim under Section 11(3) has not been properly proved by the landlords in the evidence, in that there is no evidence to show that the father is a dependent on the landlords for doing business in the petition schedule building. It is contended that the landlords have not entered the box to depose the elements required for getting eviction and the only evidence is that of the father who was examined as P.W.1, which according to the learned counsel, is insufficient. As regards the benefit of the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is concerned, it is contended that the tenant has in his proof affidavit asserted that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality or in the city for the purpose of doing business and in the absence of any cross-examination and other contra evidence the tenants case ought to have been found as proved and the contrary view taken by the Appellate Authority on that aspect is not correct.

.5. Beforegoing into the merits of these contentions, we may have to advert to the findings rendered

.by the Full Bench in the order answering the reference, since learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in Sadanandans case (supra) which was considered by the Full Bench along with other decisions on the question of burden of proof for the purpose of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

.6. After considering the rival contentions in relation to the question referred, it was held by the Full Bench as under in para 5:-

."It is settled proposition of law that the burden to prove an exception always lies on the party who claims the same and further that it has to be taken most strongly against the party for whose benefit it is made and it is for him who sets it up to establish it. This burden of proof would never shift even though the onus of the burden of proof in civil matters would ke