Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

This revision petition under sec.20 of Act 2 of 1965 is filed by the tenant against whom order of eviction has been concurrently passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation.

2. Heard both sides.

3. It was submitted by Sri C. Khalid, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that the entire arrears of rent as found by the authorities below have been paid. Mr. Pavithran, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that there is some short fall. We do not propose to settle the controversy as to whether the arrears of rent has been paid. After all, orders of eviction passed under sec.11(2)(b) are tentative orders which are liable to be vacated upon the tenant depositing the arrears of rent. While confirming the order under sec.11(2)(b), we grant one month time from today to the revision petitioner for paying or making deposit of the arrears of rent and also for filing an application under sec.11(2)(c) of the Rent Control Act.

4. The substantive ground on which eviction order is passed is the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The need projected was the need of Hariraman, the 5th respondent herein (5th petitioner in the RCP) to occupy the building for his residential purposes. Though several grounds have been raised in the RCR, Mr. Khalid would give

emphasis only to the point that the RCP is liable to fail in view of the first proviso of sub-sec.(3) of sec.11. It was submitted that Sri Hariraman, the de facto claimant, is having ownership and possession of building having door No.9/395A of Thalassery Municipality; in view of the landlord possessing his own building, eviction order could not be passed. Learned counsel would submit that certified copy of the property tax assessment register pertaining to the building having door No.9/395A was produced before the Appellate Authority along with I.A.No.1761/1998. The said IA was filed invoking the powers under Order 41 Rule 27 as well as under sec.18. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority considered the IA only through the perspectives of Rule 27 of Order 41. The IA was dismissed blaming the tenant for not having been vigilant in producing the document before the rent control court itself. Learned counsel drew our attention to secs.18(3) and 23 of Act 2/1965 as well as Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules. The learned counsel submitted that the power of the rent control court and the appellate authority to hold enquiry and to permit adduction of evidence is co-terminus with each other. The Appellate Authority was therefore not at all justified in dismissing the IA on technical reasons.

5. Mr. Pavithran, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the decision of the authorities below. He submitted that the first proviso to sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 cannot have any application to this case since the construction of building having door No.9/395A is a subsequent event. Hariraman did not have possession of that building at the time when the RCP was filed. The RCP was filed way back in 1993 and despite lapse of several years after the statutory time frame of 4 months, the RCP was not disposed of. The 5th petitioner who was in dire need of a building for his own occupation became frustrated and went in for putting up another building. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found on legal evidence which was available on record before those authorities that the need to occupy the petition schedule building is a genuine one. There is no warrant for interfering with that finding. Learned counsel submitted that the 5th petitioner will certainly occupy the petition schedule building once eviction is obtained for three years or even five years since the need to occupy that building has always been a genuine one and it survives. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in