Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The landlord is the petitioner in this revision petition under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. He applied for eviction on the ground under subsection (3) of section 11 read with clause (iv) of subsection (4) of section 11 - own occupation after reconstruction. The Rent Control Court allowed the application and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court, allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant and dismissed the RCP.

2. In this revision under section 20 the landlord impugns the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent the same is against him. We have heard the submissions of Sri. T.Krishnan Unni, senior counsel and Sri. Jacob P.Alex, counsel appearing along with him on behalf of the revision petitioner landlord and also those of Sri.M.Narendrakumar, counsel for the contesting respondents, viz., respondents, 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 8 in the rent control petition. The facts as pleaded by the parties before the Rent Control Court have been narrated correctly both by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority and hence we propose advert to the facts only briefly.

3. The building which is subject matter of the rent control proceedings was put up by Sri.Mathai George, father of the landlord more than 50 years ago and the landlord has come to have absolute ownership over the building by virtue of partition deed No.978/89 of the Sub Registry, Pathanamthitta. The petition schedule building which is portion of a larger building was leased out to one P.C.Varghese, the husband of the first respondent in the RCP and father of the other contesting respondents in the RCP in the year 1952. Sri.P.C.Varghese was conducting a bakery under the name and style "Kurian's Bakery" in the building. Upon demise of Sri.P.C.Varghese in the year 1978 the tenancy rights devolved upon his wife and children and on their behalf Sri.P.V.Jacob, the third respondent in the RCP and son of late P.C.Varghese continued to conduct bakery business. The building, due to old age and poor quality of materials used has become dilapidated to such an extent as to warrant reconstruction. The building is situated in the fast developing town of Pathanamthitta which is the headquarters of the District. The building is situated in the very heart of the town by the side of the main road. By reconstructing the building the same can be put to more profitable use. The landlord has the wherewithal to carry out reconstruction and has made all arrangements for reconstruction. The landlord was working as Mining Engineer in CEM India Co. Ltd., Rajasthan. He resigned the job in 1987 and intends to start business in coir products in the reconstructed building. The need of the landlord is bona fide, since the landlord has to find out his own means for eking out a living. The landlord pleaded that the tenants will not be entitled for the protection of the second proviso to subsection (3) since they are having other buildings in Pathanamthitta town, to which their business can be shifted.

4. Respondents 1 and 7 in the RCP alone resisted the RCP by filing objections. It was contended by them that upon demise of the original tenant, respondents 1 to 7 in the RCP continued bakery business in the building and the said business is their only means of income. They contended that the building is satisfactorily fit and durable and does not require reconstruction. It was alleged that the plea of reconstruction is only a ploy to evict the tenants. It is specifically contended that the proposed reconstruction is not possible on complying the relevant provisions of the rules within the space available. It was contended that a portion of the petition schedule building and the appurtenant ground belongs to the 8th counter petitioner in the RCP, viz., Sri.George Varghese, brother of the landlord and hence the landlord has no right or authority to demolish the entire existing building or to make any reconstruction without t