K. Surendra Mohan, J.

The tenant is in revision. The respondent-landlord had filed R.C.P.No.5 of 2001 before the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam seeking an order of eviction against the tenant alleging grounds under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short. The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court. However, as per order dated 19.12.2005 in R.C.A.No.11 of 2005, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mavelikkara has allowed the landlord’s appeal and has ordered eviction. The above revision is filed by the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the revision, the respondent-landlord died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as the landlord and the tenant respectively.

2. The petition schedule building belongs to the landlord, having obtained title to the same under a partition deed. The building was given on rent to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.967/- and he is in possession of the same, doing business in fertilizers and bone powder. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant was conducting another business by name ‘Das Agencies’ at the Mavelikkara-Thattarambalam Junction, in a building by name ‘Soma Sadanam’. The said business also is in fertilizers. The tenant has his own building close to his house and there also, he is doing business in fertilizers, bone powder etc. The landlord’s son Renjith has completed his Automobile Diploma Course and he wants to start an automobile work shop and also an automobile spare parts business. For the purpose, the petition schedule building is bona fide needed by the landlord. It is further stated in the petition that an amount of Rs.80,000/-has been received from the tenant for the purpose of construction of the building, which the landlord is ready to return. However, the tenant is not willing to receive the same and to surrender vacant possession of the building. Since the tenant was not willing to receive the amount, the same has been deposited in his bank account. It is further alleged that the tenant has constructed an additional structure on the northern side of the building thereby reducing the frontage of the building. According to the landlord, the construction amounted to material alteration of the building. Thereby reducing its value and utility. The landlord also pleaded that the tenant was not depending on the income from the business carried on by him in the tenanted premises for his livelihood. According to the landlord, there were other suitable buildings available in the locality for the tenant to shift his business. Therefore, he claimed eviction of the tenant on the grounds under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

3. The petition was resisted by the tenant contending that he was not a tenant of the building. According to the tenant, he was in possession of the building and godown on the basis of an agreement dated 3.1.1992 and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. According to him, the agreement was suppressed by the landlord. He contended that there was no provision in the agreement for determination of the lease and therefore, the same could only be treated as a perpetual lease from year to year. Hence, the Rent Control Act itself was not applicable to the said lease. He further alleged that the building was constructed for the purpose of the tenant, taking into account his requirements. Provision was made for the parking all types of vehicles also. The building was thus constructed as a godown and two rooms, to suit his requirements and he is conducting his business in bone powder, chemicals, insecticides and other fertilizers therein. He had given an amount of Rs.65,000/- to the landlord for construction of the building and a further amount of Rs.15000/- for cons