Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

RCR. 36/09 is filed by the landlord and RCR. 86/09 is filed by the tenant. Both the revision petitions are directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta. Since facts have been narrated correctly in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also in the order of the Rent Control Court we propose to refer to them only very briefly. The parties are being referred to as landlord and tenant respectively.

2. Therent control petition was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground under subsection (3) of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965, viz., the ground that the petition schedule building is required bona fide by the landlord for starting a hardware business for his dependent daughter Rahiya and son-in-law Muhammed. The landlord alleged that the tenant has got properties and buildings at Balussery, her home town and that she is having income from them. It was alleged that the tenant is having buildings having door Nos.226 to 230 and 551 to 555 in Ward No. VII of Meenangadi Panchayath in addition to two other buildings standing in her name. The landlord alleged therefore, that if the tenant wa