Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. Revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.P.No.10/2012 before the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Hosdurg, under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule building.

2. According to the landlord, the petition schedule building was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- for a period of 11 months, on 7.1.2011. The tenant defaulted payment of rent from 7.7.2011. The landlord bona fide requires the petition schedule building for own occupation, in order to start business in readymade textiles. The landlord caused to issue Exhibit A1 registered lawyer notice to which the tenant sent Exhibit A2 reply stating false allegations. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition was filed seeking an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

3. The tenant filed objections denying the allegation that there is arrears of rent in respect of the petition schedule building. According to the tenant, he had already paid the rent in respect of the petition schedule building. But, the landlord failed to issue any receipts for such payments. He had paid Rs.4,000/- to the landlord towards deposit for which as well the landlord failed to issue any receipts. The tenant contended further that, the bona fide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine.

4. Though the landlord sought for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, a memo was filed before the Rent Control Court not pressing the ground for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. On the side of the landlord, Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked. The tenant was examined as RW1.

5. The Rent Control Court, by order dated 29.1.2013, dismissed the Rent Control Petition stating that the landlord failed to establish the ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed R.C.A.No.1/2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Court), Kasaragod. The Appellate Authority, by judgment dated 20.2.2014, allowed the said appeal setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control Court and granted an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. It is aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1/2013, the revision petitioner-tenant is before us in this Rent Control Revision.

6. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant. The learned counsel contended that, the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence adduced on the side of the landlord. Hence the order of eviction is liable to be interfered with in this revision. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar.

7. The case put forward by the landlord in the Rent Control petition and Exhibit A1 lawyer notice in order to seek an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act is that, the tenant kept the rent of the petition schedule building, at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per month, in arrears from 7.7.2011 onwards. Despite the receipt of Exhibit A1 lawyer notice, the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent. Hence the Rent Control Petition was filed seeking an order of eviction. In the counter statement filed before the Rent Control Court as well as in Exhibit A2 reply notice, the tenant admitted the tenancy in respect of the petition schedule building for residential use and also the rate of monthly rent payable at Rs.2,000/-. According to the tenant, he had paid rent up to 29.2.2012 and the last payment was on 5.2.2012. Therefore, no arrears of rent is payable to the landlord. The tenant would further contend that, the landlord was in the habit of not issuing receipts on payment of rent.

8. Section 9 of the Act deals with the right of the tenant to obtain receipt for the amount paid to the landlord towards rent or advan