Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant, against whom the first respondent filed an application for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court disallowed eviction and in appeal filed by the landlord, eviction is ordered under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The remaining grounds have been disallowed by the Appellate Authority.

2. In the application for eviction filed by the first respondent herein, the bonafide need pleaded is for the occupation of his son, Shri Noushad who proposes to start a ready made garments shop in the said building. It was pleaded that he has acquired sufficient knowledge and experience in the said business and he is financially capable to start the business also and that the said Noushad is depending upon the landlord for the petition schedule building. It was also averred that they have no other vacant buildings to start the said business. The allegation made under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act is that the tenant is using the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently and the material alterations have substantially affected its nature and utility.

3. The landlord had taken out a commission, who filed Exts.C1 report and C2 plan. The evidence of the landlord consists of the testimony of P.W.1, the landlord, P.W.2, his son Shri Noushad and another person was also examined as P.W.3. The tenants have examined R.Ws.1 to 3. The Commissioner has been examined as C.W.1.

4. With regard to the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.M. Abdul Latiff submitted that the bonafide need pleaded by the landlord is not a genuine one. His son Shri Nousad is already conducting business known as 'Saleela Textiles' and 'Zia Collections' and he is having good income from the said business. Therefore, the plea raised by the landlord that he wants to provide a business to his son who is dependent upon him, is not correct. Learned counsel read through the evidence of the witnesses in that regard. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority should have considered the said aspect in the right perspective and the view taken is perverse. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kizhakkayil Suhara v. Manhantavida Aboobacker (D) by Lrs. (2001 (2) RCR 490), to advance his arguments.

5. As regards the allegation that material alterations have been made which have reduced the utility and value of the building materially and permanently, the learned counsel for the petitioners is relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in G. Reghunathan v. K.V. Varghese {(2005) 7 SCC 317}. It is submitted that the fact that floor level has been reduced, cannot be treated as a permanent alteration. The same can be easily restored also. It has not resulted in reducing the utility of the room. It is therefore submitted that Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act is not attracted. Learned counsel, in this context, referred to the evidence in the case and submitted that the finding on this aspect by the Appellate Authority is also perverse warranting interference.

6. Learned counsel for the first respondent, Shri Mathew Kuriakose, submitted that the business, viz. 'Saleela Textiles' is being run by the father and the son is also entrusted with the conduct of the same, because of old age of the father which has been explained by him in the cross examination. Apart from the same, learned counsel submitted that the same is also being conducted in a rented building and therefore the idea of the landlord to provide a business to his son, that too in his own building can only be said to be a genuine one. It cannot be said that the son of the landlord cannot do any new item of business, as they are already in the business line. It is submitted that going by the depo