Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

A tenant against whom an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act for short) is passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is the petitioner in this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The parties will be referred to for convenience as the landlord and tenant. The need projected by the landlord in the Rent Control Petition is that he has two sons by name K.V. Arun Kumar and K.V. Anek. Both of them are married and have children. Differences of opinion cropped up between them through their wives. The landlord is suffering from heart diseases and is undergoing treatment at Kovai Medical Centre, Coimbatore. To avoid bickerings in the family, the landlord needs to accommodate his son Anek and his family in the petition schedule building. Sri. Anek is a dependent of the landlord for the purpose of getting accommodation.

3. Thelandlords claim was resisted by the tenant who contended that the need projected was only a pretext for eviction. The averment that there were differences of opinion between the wives of the sons or between the sons was disputed. It was contended that the landlord has several other buildings belonging to him and if at all he needs, he can provide his son with any of those buildings. The evidence at trial consisted of the oral testimonies of P.W.1, the landlord himself and P.W.2 Anek, the son for whom the building was claimed by the landlord and the oral testimony of the tenant as R.W.1. The documentary evidence on either sides consisted of Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B6. Apart from that, there was Ext.C1 Commission report. The Rent Control Court on evaluation of the evidence found that the need put forward by the landlord was a bona fide one. That court also found that there was no evidence to hold that other suitable vacant buildings were available with the landlord for accommodating his son Anek and family. Accordingly order of eviction was passed under section 11(3). The Rent Control Appellate Authority on re-appreciating the evidence would agree with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and accordingly confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court.

4. Elaborate submissions were addressed before us by Sri.K. Jayakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Sri. Jayakumar drew our attention to the statutory definition of the term building. Counsel submitted that going by the statutory definition, the petition schedule building is to be construed as a building and not as portion of a larger building. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have proceeded as if the petition schedule building is only part of a structure and it does not qualify as a building for the purpose of Section 11(3) of the Act. Learned counsel pointed out that the larger structure which has been wrongly conceived by the authorities below in this case as the building for the purpose of the Rent Control Petition has two other identical portions which also qualify as buildings. Counsel submitted that during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition those two buildings had fallen vacant and the landlord had come back to possession of those two buildings. The event of the landlord coming back to possession of those two buildings was a subsequent event having a fundamental impact on the landlords right to evict the revision petitioner on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. In the teeth of that subsequent event, the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act came into operation and it was obligatory for the landlord to plead and establish special reasons as envisaged by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act justifying the order of eviction. Mr.Jayakumar would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad (AIR 1981 SC 1711) and argue that when possession is sought