Gopinathan , J. 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in the RCP No.

45/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondents herein, who are landlords of the revision petitioner, instituted the above petition seeking an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the pleadings in the petition and by the judgment impugned, it is revealed that a building facing east towards the Chittur Road is owned by the respondents. A portion in the upstairs, which is the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner and he had been occupying the same as a lessee. On the southern side of the petition schedule building and towards the back side, the respondents own about 27 cents of land. The respondents bonafide planned for constructing a multi stored building in that property. As per the plan prepared, separate entry and exit are provided to the proposed building. Entry is through the southern side and the exit is through the northern side. To provide the exit, a portion of the petition schedule building covering the staircase is to be demolished, for which the revision petitioner is to be evicted. With these pleadings, the respondents approached the Rent Control Court seeking order of eviction under section 11(3) and 11 (4)(iv) of the Act.

2. The revision petitioner in his objection contended that he is doing business in electrical and electronics goods in the petition schedule building and the income thereon is the only source for his livelihood and that no suitable building is available in the locality to shift and that even without demolition of the petition schedule building, the respondents could provide ingress and egress to the proposed building and that the eviction sought is without any bonafides and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. During the course of enquiry, on the side of the respondents, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the revision petitioner, RWs 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the respondents. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the revision petitioner. Ext.A7 is the approved plan of the proposed building. During the time of argument, on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel submitted that he was not pressing the claim for eviction under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act. It was duly endorsed on the petition on 3/6/2008. The rent control court, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding that the respondents are entitled to an order of eviction under section 11(3) of the Act as they had established the bonafide need. Accordingly, eviction was granted by allowing the petition in part.

4. Though the revision petitioner preferred an appeal as RCA No.103/2008 before the appellate authority, Ernakulam, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment in appeal confirming eviction under section 11 (3), this revision petition was filed under Section 20 of the Act.

5. We heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment, order of the Rent Controller and the records. We notice that the building proposed to be constructed as per Ext.P7 is a multi storied building having 11 stories. It is admitted from the Bar that the building proposed is a commercial-cum-residential complex. The design of the ground floor, the first floor and second floor of the proposed building is as commercial complex. Rest of the floors are residential apartments. There is no whisper in the pleadings or in the evidence that the whole commercial building complex is for the own occupation of the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that a major portion of the commerci