Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 filed by the landlady and the legal heirs of deceased original landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the Rent Control Petition which was filed to evict the respondent tenant on the ground of bonafide need of own occupation. The first revision petitioner is the widow of the deceased landlord and other revision petitioners are the children of the deceased landlord. The petition schedule building is one room in a larger building consisting of two main rooms with veranda in the front and a lean-to at the back. In the adjacent building the brother of the deceased husband of the first revision petitioner is conducting business in stationery and cool bar.

But during the pendency of the RCP he changed his business to dry fish. The need projected by the landlady was that she needs the petition schedule premises so that she can conduct business in vegetables and fruits. She averred in the Rent Control Petition that after the demise of her husband she is short of funds for maintaining herself and her family, that if the proposed business is conducted in the petition schedule building, she will have the support and assistance of her brother-in-law who is doing business in the adjacent room. In anticipation of a contention that tenant is entitled for protection to second proviso, it is averred in the RCP itself that tenant is not depending mainly for his livelihood on the income derived from the petition schedule building and that other buildings are available in the locality for the tenant to shift his business if he so desires. The bonafides of the need was disputed by the tenant before the Rent Control Court. It was pointed out that the lean-to portion of the building, where the husband of the first revision petitioner was conducting business, is vacant and that if it becomes necessary, it will be possible for the first revision petitioner to conduct business in that portion. The tenant also contended that he satisfies both the ingredients of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11 and hence even if the need is found to be bonafide he is not liable to be evicted. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, B1 and B2 and commission report C1 & sketch C1(a). Oral evidence consisted of PW1 the first revision petitioner landlady, PW2 the Advocate Commissioner, PW3 the Secretary of the Panchayat and PW4 Binukumar who is the witness cited by the landlady to show that other buildings are available in the locality. On the side of the tenant the solitary evidence was his own evidence as CPW1. Learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that need was bonafide and that the lean-to portion of buildings where the brother of the husband of the first revision petitioner is conducting the business is not suitable for conducting business proposed by the first revision petitioner. It was also found that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso. Accordingly order of eviction was passed against the tenant. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. That authority under the impugned judgment has reversed all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the

2. In this revision petition under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the findings entered by the Appellate Authority on the various aspects of the case and Sri. M. Narendrakumar, learned counsel for revision petitioners addressed us very extensively on the basis of all those grounds. All the submissions of Mr. Narendrakumar were stiffly resisted by Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel for the respondent, who supported the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the various reasons stated in that judgment. Mr.Narendrakumar submitted that the apprecia