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 wants to shift her textile business she has her own building to shift to, and that the tenant is not entitled protection for the second proviso to subsection (3) of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965.

3. The tenant contended that the need put forward by the landlord is only a ruse for getting eviction and that the landlords son-in-law is working in Gulf a country for many years and that he has landed properties and business establishments at Koduvally his native town, and has no need for starting hardware business in the petition schedule building. It was alleged that the rent control petition was filed without bonafides in retaliation to the tenant not acceding to the landlords request for enhancement of rent. The tenant denied the allegation regarding the availability of buildings with her and contended that the buildings made mention of by the landlord are in the possession of tenants and that on the basis of an oral partition, those buildings have been set apart to the share of the tenants daughter.

4. The evidence at enquiry by the Rent Control Court consisted of the oral testimony of the landlord as PW-1 and the testimony of Sri.Sreenivasan, son of the tenant as RW-1. Documentary evidence on the side of the landlord consisted of Exts.A1 to A6. The tenants son Sreenivasan was permitted to defend the RCP and to adduce evidence on behalf of his mother Devaky, the tenant. The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the need put forward by the landlord is bona fide and hence ordered eviction under subsection (3) of section 11. The Appellate Authority on re-appreciating the evidence concluded that the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bonafides of the need was correct. However, on the reason that the landlord had prosecuted the rent control petition without appointing a guardian for the tenant who is mentally incapable of defending herself, it was found that the order passed by the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord was hit by Rules 2 and 15 of Order 32 C.P.C. Accordingly the order was set aside and the RCP was remitted back to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In RCR. 36 of 2009 the landlord challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to the extent the eviction order is set aside and matter remanded to the Rent Control Court and in RCR. 86 of 2009 the tenant challenges the correctness of the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority regarding the genuineness of the need projected by the landlord.

5. We have heard the submissions of Sri.T.Krishnan Unni, learned senior counsel for the landlord and also those of Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel for the tenant. Mr.Krishnan Unni would submit that the finding of the Rent Control Cou