Sankaran, J.

1. The question involved in this revision is whether it is necessary for the tenant to file a memorandum of crossobjection against the finding of the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'), when the landlord challenges in appeal the order of the Rent Control Court holding that the landlord has not established the bona fide need under Section 11 (3) of the Act.

2. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found that the landlord has not established the bona fide need put forward by him. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenant failed to establish the ingredients of second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed.

3. The landlord filed appeal before the Appellate Authority against the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court as regards the bona fide need put forward by the landlord in the Rent Control Petition. The Appellate Authority held that the landlord succeeded in establishing that the building is required for the use of the 4th petitioner before the Rent Control Court to run a hotel business. However, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant is not entitled to challenge the finding recorded by the Rent Control Court against him under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, since the tenant did not file a Memorandum of Cross-objection in the Rent Control Appeal. This Rent Control Revision is filed by the tenant.

4. The 4th petitioner in the Rent Control Petition stated that he bona fide requires to run a hotel in the petition schedule building. He is aged 60 years. He stated that he was helping his father in his textile business. He has agricultural land. The 4th petitioner's wife also owns agricultural land. The 4th petitioner stated in evidence that his father's sister owns about 5 to 8 acres of agricultural land and it was being managed by the 4th petitioner on behalf of the owner, and for that purpose, he was residing in the house of the relative of his wife.

5. The Rent Control Court held against the landlord on the question of bona fide need on the following grounds.

“In this context, it is pertinent to note that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he is aged 60 years. In cross-examination he had categorically admitted that he is aged 60 years and he has no job or avocation at present. It is his definite case that he has no job at present and as was the situation in the past. So it is obviously clear that till today the petitioner has not done any job or avocation. Substantial portion of his life has been spent by him without any job or avocation. It is to be noted that there is no evidence forth coming to substantiate the reason for the change of mind of the 4th petitioner. What prompted him to think of an income earning venture in the late fifties is not clear from the evidence on record. There is absolutely no pleading in the petition regarding the same. There is no whisper in the petition why the 4th petitioner thought of a starting an income earning venture at this age of 60 years. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has no case that he thought of an income earning venture because of his penury. He has no case that he wants to augment his income by starting a new venture. He has no case that now he realised the fact that he requires an avocation.

16. It is to be noted that it is not a case where an youngster thinking of starting an income earning venture. It is a case where a person who is in the late fiftees thinking of an income earning venture. In this context it is pertinent to note that PW1 has not done any job till he attains the age of 60 years. So it is quite clear that the need projected by the petitioner is only a ruse to evict th