Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The tenant of a building, who is ordered to be evicted from the premises for the bona fide need of the landlord, is the petitioner herein.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.N. Shiv Shanker submitted that so many factors have relevance to show absence of any bona fide need herein which have not been properly appreciated by the Appellate Authority. At the outset, it is pointed out that the Rent Control Court had rejected the prayer under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the 'Act'). The case was tried along with R.C.P.No.90/2010 and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding.

3. We have been taken in extenso through the pleadings, the notices issued by the landlord and the evidence in the matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.A6 notice was issued on 24/11/2007 wherein initially, the landlord had set up a plea on bona fide need. It is stated by the landlord in the present eviction petition that the tenant had sought for time to vacate the premises and therefore, he did not approach the Court. The present proceedings have been initiated after Ext.A8 notice dated 09/04/2010 was issued. It is submitted that there is no explanation for the delay and even in the evidence, he had stated that the actual need was felt in the year 2005. The learned counsel therefore submits that if the need had actually been there in 2005, the filing of the eviction petition in the year 2010 will show that it is only a ruse to evict the tenant. It is also submitted that the analysis of the evidence by the Rent Control Court was proper and the Appellate Authority has reversed the findings without going into the various aspects pointed out by the tenant.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord Shri M.R. Jayaprasad submitted that there are no circumstances to doubt the bona fide need of the landlord and it is well settled that the delay itself in filing the eviction petition after the issuance of the notice is not a ground to reject the eviction petition. He relied upon the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Aboobacker v. Nanu [2001 (3) KLT 815], especially in para.9 therein, wherein this Court was of the view that the Court can take note of the fact that a party may not rush to the court for getting remedy.

5. In the order passed by the Rent Control Court, in para.16, the court has discussed the evidence. After referring to the evidence of PW1, it was noticed that the second demand notice was issued only on 09/04/2010 and there is no explanation for the delay. Therein, the Rent Control Court adverted to the statement of PW1 in the cross-examination that the need for starting business had arose in the year 2005 and he had taken loan during that year.

6. Going by the evidence, his two sons are employed and his elder son is a M.C.A Graduate and the second son is a holder in B.Tech in Electronics and Computer and the younger son is a B.Tech student. According to the Rent Control Court, though the need arose in the year 2005, first demand notice was issued in the year 2007. It is also observed that after the necessity arose in the year 2005, he had obtained vacant possession of a portion of the same building having 600 sq.ft. and let out the same to a Chartered Accountant. Apart from the same, in the year 2005, he let out another portion of the building have same area to Airtel Communications.

7. In fact, the evidence of the landlord showed that he had a STD Booth in the same building and for want of profit it was stopped. The learned counsel therefore submits that the fact that he had failed in making any progress in the business itself will show that he is not capable of doing the business. As far as the present business is concerned, he is not having any knowledge about computers and going by his evidence, his wife is only having a pass in Pre-Degree and both of them are not having any knowledge about