Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The defeated tenant, who is the revision petitioner herein has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Rent Control Court.

2. The landlord, the respondent herein sought eviction of the petitioner under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the 'Act'). The landlord is the President of Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Cherupuzha Unit in Kannur District. According to the averments in the eviction petition, the room was let out to the tenant on 14/03/2000 for a monthly rent of 1,000/-. The requirement pointed out by the landlord is that in the ground floor the only room which faces the road is the petition schedule room and the office of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi is housed in an inconvenient room. They have no other rooms sufficient for the said purpose.

3. The above plea was accepted by both the authorities and eviction was ordered.

4. Before us, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant Shri V.Ramkumar Nambiar mainly submitted that it is a case where three rooms are in possession of the landlord in the very same building about which the tenant had made mention in the counter statement filed in R.C.P.No.12/2009 itself and PW1 when cross-examined admitted the existence of the same and possession of them with the landlord. It is submitted that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act requires the landlord to offer special reasons in which it has miserably failed. It is submitted that overlooking the above, both the authorities have ordered eviction. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the Appellate Authority, in para.11 of the Judgment, after finding that the landlord is in possession of the said rooms went on a tangent and adverted to the reasons pointed out by the landlord for eviction of the petition schedule building which is not the requirement of the statute. The learned counsel invited our attention to the oral evidence in the matter and the findings rendered by the authorities below.

5. Learned counsel Shri M.Sasindran appearing for the landlord submitted that the appreciation of evidence is perfectly justified and the conclusions have been arrived at correctly on the evidence adduced by both sides. Learned counsel in his vehement argument submitted that the entire conclusions entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are on a correct reading of the pleadings and evidence in the matter. Therefore, sitting in revision, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings on facts as the revisional jurisdiction is limited which position of law cannot be disputed in view of the various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, namely, Mathu vs. Shamsudhin [2002 (2) KLT SN 101 Case No.121] and Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana and others [AIR 1993 SC 1616]. Learned counsel also submitted that the choice of a building for occupation is that of the prerogative of the landlord, and the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should adjust to his requirement. In that context, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:

R.C.Tamrakar and another vs. Nidi Lekha [(2001) 8 SCC 431], Madhava v. Pathumabi [2005 (3) KLT 369] and Mohamood Haji v. Devootty Amma [2004 (2) KLT 248].

6. Since the argument raised before us is that there is total misapplication of facts and law, we will be justified in scanning through the pleadings as well as the evidence of the parties. It is a case where the landlord is having its office in the very same building. The landlord is the unit of Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, an organisation of traders and merchants. What is projected in para.5 of the eviction petition as reasons for seeking eviction are that the first floor of the building situates on the ground level; in the ground floor, the only room which faces towards main road is the