Balakrishnan, J.

1. The short but important question that arises for consideration in this revision filed by the tenant, who suffered an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 (for short 'the Act') is whether 'gumpty shop' which is the subject matter of the petition for eviction is a 'building' as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act.

2. The landlord filed petition for eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The claim made under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was disallowed by the Rent Control Court. It was not pursued thereafter. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed.

3. The case of the landlord who is the respondent in this revision is that the 'gumpty' shop (which is almost like a bunk) described in the petition schedule was originally leased out to the father of the revision petitioner by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent in August, 1990 with a stipulation to pay Rs.50/- as monthly rent. After the respondent/landlord purchased the whole property, a fresh lease deed (kychit) was executed on 2.2.1996 whereunder the revision petitioner agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.100/- to the landlord. The landlord contended that the tenant kept the rent in arrears from January, 2003 onwards and hence sought eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. It was further contended by the landlord that he has no job or avocation and in order to eke out his livelihood, he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for starting a stationery business.

4. The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that no rent was kept in arrears and that the need projected by the landlord is not bonafide. It was also contended that the respondent is having other business and that he is having other buildings of his own in his possession. Further, it was contended that the tenant is depending mainly on the income from the petition schedule building for his livelihood and there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality. It was also contended that the R.C.P. is not maintainable.

5. The Rent Control Court found that the gumpty shop which is the subject matter of the R.C.P. would come under the definition of building and hence the objection regarding maintainability raised by the tenant was turned down. The Appellate Authority also concurred with that view. The rent control court found that the tenant could not prove the discharge pleaded by him. The need putforward by the landlord was found to be bonafide and since the tenant could not succeed in establishing the two ingredients required for getting protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3), order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3) also. It was also found that the tenant could not prove that the landlord owns and is having in his possession any other building suitable for conducting business. As stated above, the Appellate Authority upheld the decision rendered by the learned Rent Controller.

6. Sri.P.V.Harish, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though in the rent control appeal serious challenge was made with regard to the finding entered by the Rent Controller as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the subject matter of the R.C.P. is not a building as can be seen from ground nos.6 to 18, the learned Appellate Authority did not advert to those grounds and hence on that ground itself the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority has to be set aside. On going through the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, it is seen that all the grounds which were urged by the tenant were considered and as such it has to be found that these grounds were not so seriously pressed into service before the learned Appellate Authority. Whatever that be, the first question to be considered is whether 'gumpty' shop described in the petition schedule is