P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The tenant, in a proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), is the petitioner in this Rent Control Revision. The decision, by which, the Appellate Authority under the Act, confirmed an order of eviction is impugned in this Revision.

2. The subject matter of the proceedings is a shop room. Eviction was sought by the landlords under Section 11 (3) of the Act, alleging that the third petitioner needs the shop room to start a footwear and fancy store, by utilizing the said room with the adjoining shop room, which is in the occupation of another tenant.

3. The tenant contested the petition for eviction, contending, inter alia, that the need projected for eviction is not a bonafide one and that the landlords have other buildings and rooms in their possession, where the third petitioner can start the proposed business. According to the tenant, the landlords are running a Tourist Home in a building, situated near the petition schedule room; that the hall on the ground floor of the said building is lying vacant and that the same can be converted and used by them for the need of the third petitioner. It was also contended by the tenant that the availability of the said vacant premises was not pleaded by the landlords in the petition for eviction and therefore, the petition for eviction was liable to be dismissed on that ground also.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, the tenant in the adjoining room has vacated the premises and the landlords have come into possession of the said room.

5. The Rent Control Court, on an evaluation of the materials on record, found that the need set up by the landlords for eviction is bonafide and that the space available in the Tourist Home is not suitable for the proposed business. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered, as claimed in the petition for eviction.

6. The tenant challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal. The Appellate Authority also on facts found that the need set up by the landlords for eviction is bonafide. The appellate authority further found that there are justifiable reasons for the landlords for non-occupation of the vacant premises in the building of the Tourist Home. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

7. We have heard Adv. Sri.V. Premchand, for the revision petitioner and Sri. C.M. Mohammed Iqbal, who was appearing on caveat, for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the landlord is bound to plead and prove special reasons for not occupying other buildings of his own in his possession; that there is no pleading in the Rent Control Petition as to the special reason for the non-occupation of the vacant space in the building of the Tourist Home owned by them and therefore, the Rent Control Petition is liable to be dismissed. He has also relied on the decisions of this Court in Janatha Drugs v. Maithri Construction (2007(4) KLT 625) and in Abdul Salam v. Sebastian [2013(4) KLT 592].

9. A copy of the Rent Control Petition and a copy of the report of the advocate Commissioner appointed by the Rent Control Court were made available to us by the counsel for the parties. It is pleaded in the Petition that the petition schedule shop room is situated in a commercially important place and that the same is the most suitable premises for the proposed business under the ownership of the petitioners. The report of the Advocate Commissioner indicates that the petition schedule shop room is situated, facing the Edappal-Pattambi public road and the Tourist Home building is situated almost 185 feet away from the said road, facing a side road. The report indicates that the width of the side road is only 9 feet. PW1 has given categorical evidence that the vaca