Harilal, J.

1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment passed in RCA.30/08 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam, declining the claim for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (BRC Act). The revision petitioner/landlord filed the petition under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition as prayed for. The order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged in appeal on various grounds by the respondent/tenant. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on the findings that the requirement for additional accommodation for expanding the business is not bonafide and that the decision taken regarding comparative hardship under proviso to Section 11(10) of the BRC Act is not correct.

The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:-

Facts:

The respondent/tenant is occupying the petition schedule shop room for conducting a book depot by name "S.H. Book Depot" on the northern portion of the ground floor of a multi-storied building by name 'Swapana Building' owned and possessed by the landlord and situating in the heart of Changanassery town. The landlord is occupying another shop room for conducting a jewellery by name "Swapna Jewellery" on the southern portion of the same floor adjacent to the petition schedule shop room. Thus, the landlord and tenant are occupying different portions of the same building. The need projected by the landlord is that the petition schedule shop room is highly and bonafide required for further expansion of his jewellery business. There is immense scope for expanding the business. The landlord further averred that the tenant is having two other book depots and the income derived from the petition schedule shop room is not the only source of income for his livelihood. By eviction no hardship would be caused to the tenant but it would be more advantageous to the landlord. The contentions raised in reply notice are false and untenable. The tenant contented that the landlord has enough vacant space in the existing show room itself for expanding the business and he is having sufficient vacant space on the 1st and IInd floors of the building also. In addition to that there is cellar portion adjacent to the landlord's jewellery. If the need is a bona fide one, he could have expanded the business by occupying the vacant space in the existing show room and on the 1st and IInd floors. Besides cellar portion is also laying vacant. In the year 2006, the landlord renovated the existing shop room by annexing the shop room surrendered by CPW4 and expanded the business. So there is no scope for a further expansion. No other buildings are available in the locality to shift his business. He further contended that the hardship which may be caused to him, if eviction is ordered, will outweigh the advantage that may be derived by the landlord. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked for the landlord and CPW1 to CPW4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked for the tenant. Ext.C1 Commission Report also marked as court exhibit.

2. Submissions at the Bar:

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Smt.Saritha David Chungath submits that the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is totally erroneous in law and is the result of total mis-appreciation of facts and evidence. The Appellate Authority failed to notice that the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation, being a genuine need, the tenant cannot insist that the need shall be met by occupying vacant space in the 1st or 2nd floor of the building.It will be unsuitable to the business like jewellery which needs the ground floor itself to attract the customers. The Appellate Authority ought to have found that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting eviction will not outweigh the advantage that may be derived to the landlord by allowing the additional acc