P. Ubaid, J.

1. The landlord, who obtained an order of eviction from the trial court under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act1), lost it in appeal. Now he is before this Court with this revision brought under Section 20 of the Act, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Authority against him. He filed R.C.P No.9/2007 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff Court, Perambra) seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act. The petition schedule building was let out to the tenant (respondent herein) years back. In 1993, when he was aged only 23 years, he filed R.C.P No. 1/1993, for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. His request was disallowed by the trial court, and he lost his case in appeal also. The revision brought by him before this Court as C.R.P No.638/2000 was also dismissed, however giving liberty to him to file a fresh petition on the ground of bonafide need. Accordingly, he brought R.C.P No.9/2007 on the same ground of bonafide need. His case is that he does not have any job or business of his own, and he has decided to start a business in hill produce, for which he wants the petition schedule building. He seeks eviction of the respondent because he has no other building or room in his possession for the said purpose, but the respondent can very well shift his business to some other convenient place in the same locality.

2. The respondent resisted the prayer for eviction on the contention that the present Rent Control Petition is barred under Section 15 of the Act in view of the dismissal of the earlier application brought on the same ground, that the landlord has sufficient income from other sources, that he has no intention at all to start a business of his own, and that other vacant buildings are not available in the same locality for shifting his business.

3. The trial court conducted an enquiry in the proceedings, during which oral and documentary evidence was recorded. Two witnesses including the landlord were examined and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the landlord. The tenant was examined as RW1 and Exhibits B1 to B27 were marked on his side. The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court during the proceedings was marked as Exhibit CI. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial court found that the Rent Control Petition is not barred under Section 15 of the Act in view of the permission granted by this Court in the earlier proceeding to file a fresh petition, that the landlord bonafide needs the petition schedule building for his business purposes, for which he does not have any other vacant room or building in his possession, and that the tenant is not entitled for the benefit of the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly the trial court (Rent Controller) granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act by order dated 27.2.2010 in R.C.P No.9/2007.

4. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority (District Court, Kozhikode) as R.C.A No.32/2010. In appeal, the appellate authority concurred with the findings of the trial court as regards the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and also as regards the bar under Section 15 of the Act. However, the Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) reversed the findings of the trial court on bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act, on the finding that the need projected by the landlord is not genuine, and that he has income from other sources as a man of wealth. Now the case of the landlord is that the said finding of the appellate authority is quite erroneous, because it was not made on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case.

5. Before going to the legal aspect as to whether the present Rent Control Petition is barred und