K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petition schedule building was let out to the tenant as per the agreement dated 1.6.1984 fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. From January, 2011 onwards, rent was enhanced to Rs. 400/-. Since the Rent Control Court rejected the petition under Section 11(2)(b) and since that order became final, the question of arrears of rent does not assume importance now.

2. The landlord alleged that the petition schedule building was sublet by the tenant to his brother Asokan and the sublessee is doing business in the petition schedule building. The respondent/landlord contended that he is conducting a stationery business in a temporary shed which was made after covering the staircase area. The landlord stated that his son sustained disability in a motor vehicle accident. According to the landlord, he bonafide requires the petition schedule building for expanding his business with the help of his son. There are two rooms in the building belonging to the landlord. Those two rooms were let out to the present tenant and his brother Asokan. The landlord contended that the tenant (Krishnadas) sublet one room to his brother Asokan. Thus both the rooms in the main building are now in the possession of Asokan. The landlord is in possession of only the shed attached to the building.

3. The tenant denied the sublease. He contended that Asokan is not doing business in the petition schedule building and that he is doing business only in the adjacent room which was let out to him. The tenant also disputed the claim made by the landlord under Section 11(8) of the Act.

4. The Rent Control Court considered the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence in the case and held on facts that the petition schedule building was sublet by the tenant to his brother Asokan. Exhibits A7 to 10, the extracts of the license fee register maintained by the Panchayath, were relied on by the Rent Control Court to hold that the license to conduct the business in the petition schedule shop room was given to Asokan, the brother of the tenant. The evidence of the landlord as PW1 was also found reliable by the Rent Control Court. The Commissioner, who was examined as PW2 before the Rent Control Court, stated in his report that Asokan was conducting business in the petition schedule shop room. From the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Court arrived at the finding that the landlord established that Asokan has exclusive possession of the petition schedule room and that it was on a sublease created by the tenant. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act.

5. As regards the ground under Section 11(8) of the Act, both the Authorities found that the need for additional accommodation put forward by the landlord is genuine. A contention was raised by the tenant before the Rent Control Court that the adjacent room of the shed in the possession of the landlord is under the occupation of Asokan, the brother of the tenant, and therefore, even if the landlord has need for additional accommodation under Section 11(8), he should have sought for eviction of the building in the possession of Asokan. Another contention raised by the tenant was that the landlord constructed another building on the rear side of the building in which the petition schedule room is situated and if at all the landlord wanted to expand his business, he could occupy sufficient rooms in the building on the rear side. These contentions were negatived by the Rent Control Court as well as by the Appellate Authority.

6. It is not in dispute that the room adjacent to the room occupied by the landlord is in the occupation of Asokan and the petition schedule room is situated next to the room