K. Surendra Mohan, J.

This is a tenant’s revision filed challenging concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Aluva and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur. The respondent-landlord is the KAMCO employees Union, represented by its General Secretary. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S.11(3), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. On appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected the ground under S.11(3) and confined the order of eviction to the grounds under S.11(8) and 11(7) of the Act.

2. The respondent-landlord field R.C.P.No.15 of 2004 of the Rent Control Court, Aluva seeking an order of eviction against the tenant under S.11(3), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the tenanted premises having an area of 750 sq.ft. was initially let out to the husband of the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.2,300/-for the purpose of conducting hotel business. However, the husband of the revision petitioner could not conduct the business in his name for the reason that he was an employee of the ‘TELK’. Therefore, on his request a renewed agreement was executed by the landlord in favour of the revision petitioner. On the north of the petition schedule premises, there is another room from which the office of the respondent-landlord is functioning at present. It is the case of the landlord that the space now available is not sufficient for its activities. According to the landlord, for conducting its annual general body meeting, the space was absolutely insufficient. Therefore, it was contended that the space occupied by the revision petitioner was also required for the purpose of organizing its activities and for conducting its general body meeting.

3. The need put forward by the landlord was resisted by the tenant. According to her, the petition schedule premises was constructed by her utilizing her own funds on the land owned by the Union after seeking its permission. According to her, she had spent an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- for the construction of the petition schedule room. However, she had been made to sign and hand over to the Union, blank stamp papers at the time of commencement of the tenancy. The allegation is that Union had fabricated a rent deed on such signed blank stamp papers.

4. The tenant further contended that the office space presently available was more than sufficient for organizing the activities of the Union. The annual general body meeting is convened only once a year. On other days, the Union is letting out the available space on daily rent. Therefore, the tenant contended that the need alleged was only a ruse for eviction.

5. The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the above pleadings. The landlord examined PWs. 1 to 3 witnesses while the tenant examined herself and her husband as RWs.1 to 2. On the side of the landlord. Exts.A1 to A23 (series) documents were marked. Ext.C1 Commission Report was marked as Court Exhibit.

6. After an elaborate consideration of the contentions of the parties and the evidence on record, the court below granted an order of eviction on the three grounds put forward in the Rent Control Petition. The order of the Rent Control Court was challenged by the tenant in R.C.A. No.29 of 2005 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the pleadings and the evidence on record found that the order of eviction under S.11(3) was unjustified and therefore set aside the same. However, the order of eviction under S.11(7) and 11(8) were sustained. The aggrieved tenant is the revision petitioner.

7. We have heard Adv. P.B. Krishnan, the counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. V.K. Veeravunni, the counsel for the respondent-landlord. We have been taken through the pleadings and the evidence in the case. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions of the parties and the evidence in the case.

8. The point that aris