Ramachandran Nair, J.

The premises in question was rented out to the tenant as per lease deed dated 29.1969. The tenant is conducting a hotel there. It was owned by a partnership firm named as M/s. M.C. Vareed and Company. The present landlord was one of the erstwhile partners. The monthly rent claimed is at the rate of Rs.225/-. The partnership was dissolved on 110.1999 and the schedule building was set apart to the present landlord. The eviction petition was filed raising various grounds under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial court granted eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act and rejected the other grounds. Both sides appealed against the said order passed by the Rent Control Court.

.2. The Appellate Authority by a common judgment, partly allowed the appeal filed by the landlord in regard to the ground pleaded under Section 11(2)(b) and thus ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.

.The order passed by the Rent Control Court rejecting the ground under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) was confirmed. As regards the ground under Section 11(4)(ii), accepting the plea of the landlord, the matter stands remanded to the Rent Control Court for fresh consideration. Both sides have come up in revision challenging the above judgment of the Appellate Authority.

3. Wehave heard Shri Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the landlord and Shri M.A. Abdul Hakhim who appeared for the tenant.

.4. The necessary facts for the disposal of the revision petitions show the following: According to the

.landlord, on dissolution of the partnership, he has become the absolute owner of the tenanted premises. An amount of Rs.5,275/- remained as arrears of rent for the period 29.1969 to March 1987. From April 1987 onwards no amount has been paid towards rent. The premises have been subleased to the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition who is conducting a hotel in the name and style of Sagar Hotel. The bonafide need pleaded is for own occupation by the landlord to conduct business in sanitary items as he has no other avocation in life. It is alleged that the tenant has effected certain alterations which have reduced the value and utility of the building. Two steps leading to the front room stands demolished, a new wash basin with bricks was constructed by him in one room, a new latrine was constructed in the corner of one of the rooms, another water tank was constructed and a new pipe connection was taken to it. For driving out water from the said water tank a drainage has also been laid. These are the grounds under under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

5. In his objections, the tenant mainly contended that the right, if any of the landlord is only upon dissolution of the partnership on 110.1999 and he cannot maintain a petition for eviction for any alleged arrears of rent prior to the said period during which the partnership was owning the building. The original rent was only Rs.200/- and it was agreed that certain constructions mentioned in the lease deed had to be undertaken by the landlord and on completion of the same, the rent will be increased to Rs.225/- and when the father of the present landlord was informed about it, he refused to receive rent from him. The arrears of rent from 110.1999 till date of petition was deposited along with the objection. The own occupation for bonafide need of the landlord was disputed by the tenant in his objections. It is stated that the landlord and his wife are doing various businesses in Aluva and Varappuzha. Apart from that, three rooms numbered as 195, 197 and 198 in Ward No.VIII are remaining vacant in the possession of the landlord and the tenant of one of the rooms was evicted through court by filing R.C.P.No.9/2000. This is an up stair room of the petition schedule building and there is a stair leading to the said room and this is sufficient for doing hi