C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

The tenant is in revision against the concurrent findings of the rent control court and the appellate authority ordering eviction on the ground of bonafide need urged by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. The rent control petition was filed invoking grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The courts below concurrently found that the landlord was not successful in establishing the ground under Section 11(4)(iii). But the Rent Control court found that the bonafide need projected by the landlord for starting his own business in footwears is well established. The appellate authority confirmed the findings.

2. Heard Sri. R. Surendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner at length. The main contention is against the findings of the courts below with respect to the first proviso to Section 11 (3). We have the opportunity to peruse copy of the rent control petition, the objections filed by the tenant, and the depositions of PW1 and RW1. The specific pleading of the landlord was that, he is not having any other vacant building in his direct possession. On the contrary, the objection of the tenant was that, there are many vacant rooms in the possession of the landlord in the same locality. Apart from the general nature of pleadings and counter pleadings, the tenant had not pointed out any particular building allegedly in the possession of the landlord.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had drawn our attention to the deposition of PW1. In cross examination, landlord deposed as follows:-

MALAYALAM

4. Banking upon the above quoted statement, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contended that the same amounts to an admission on the part of the landlord that he had a building in his possession at the time of filing of the rent control petition. According to the counsel, the rent control petition was filed in the year 2001 and the evidence of PW1 was let in only on 17/03/2004, and hence it amounts to a suppression on the part of the landlord. The counsel argues that it was the bounden duty of the landlord to disclose about possession of another building and he ought to have proved that the building which was sold was not suitable for establishing the business which he was proposing to start. He further contends that at any rate the above quoted admission need be taken note of as a subsequent development having fundamental impact upon the bonafides of the need projected by the landlord.

5. Open active consideration of the above contentions, we are of the opinion that the admission of the landlord upon which the tenant is now relying, is not at all a conclusive proof to the effect that the landlord was having vacant possession of any other building at the time of filing of the rent control petition. It is not clear from the deposition, as to whether the “two years” mentioned therein is “two years” before the filing of the rent control petition or “two years” before the date of examination. Further the “two years” spoken to by the landlord cannot be taken with arithmetical accuracy to arrive at an exact conclusion that, on the date of filing of the rent control petition the respondent/landlord was having another building in his possession.

6. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the rent control court is not justified in issuing an order of eviction, if it is proved that the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village. It is the duty on the part of the tenant who claims the benefit of the first proviso to establish that, the landlord was having ownership and possession of another building in the same city, town or village. Only if the tenant prima facie establishes the above facts through convincing evidence, the burden will shift to the landlord to disprove the same or to satisfy the rent control court that for any special reasons such bui