1. This is a landlord's revision challenging concurrent orders of the authorities below dismissing a Rent Control Petition for eviction. The landlord had approached the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi seeking an order of eviction against the respondents/ tenants under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act for short). The Rent Control Petition RCP No. 1 of 2011 was contested by the respondents. After trial, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. Though the landlord had challenged the order of dismissal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur in RCA No. 37 of 2012, the order of the Rent Control Court has been confirmed. The aggrieved landlord is the revision petitioner.

2. The landlord is the owner of a three storied building in Kottakkal Municipality. The tenanted premises are on the ground floor of the building and comprises of six rooms. The respondents have taken the shop rooms on rent on 27.3.2009. They have divided the shop rooms into cubicles that are sublet to different persons who are conducting businesses in duty paid goods. The respondents are also conducting a cool bar. The monthly rent in respect of the premises is Rs. 25,000/-. According to the tenants an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs has been paid as advance.

3. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants alleging that he needed the premises for the purpose of starting a supermarket, along with his son and son-in-law. It was also alleged that there were arrears of rent, that the tenant had sublet the premises to third parties in violation of the terms of the lease deed and that the tenant had materially altered the tenanted premises causing a diminution in the value thereof. The tenants disputed the need of the landlord contending that, he was still employed abroad and was holding an employment visa. His son is otherwise occupied, owns other buildings and is not dependant on the landlord. According to the tenants, landlord was a very affluent person who owned other buildings and premises at Valancherry, Edayoor and Kozhikode. Therefore he had absolutely no need to start a supermarket, as alleged. The need that has been put forward is only a ruse for eviction.

4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 and A2 documents as well as the oral evidence of P.Ws1 and 2 on the side of the landlord. On the side of the tenants, Exts.B1 to B5 documents were marked and R.Ws1 and 2 were examined as witnesses. Exts.C1 and C2 commission report and sketch are marked as court exhibits. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record found that the landlord had not succeeded in establishing any of the grounds alleged by him. Therefore the Rent Control Petition was dismissed. The Appellate Authority has, on a reappreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court.

5. According to the Senior Counsel Shri. T. Krishnanunni though it is true that the landlord in the present case is an affluent person, the said fact cannot be a ground to find that the need put forward by him was not bonafide. The question as to whether the need put forward by the landlord was bonafide or not has not been considered by the Rent Control Court at all. The only question considered by the Rent Controller was regarding the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority also has misdirected itself to reach conclusions that are unsustainable, it is contended. Particular reference is made to the observations of the Appellate Authority in paragraph 9 of its judgment wherein it is stated that, the only task of the Appellate Authority was to ascertain whether the order of the Rent Controller suffers from any infirmity warranting interference or not. The above statement according to the learned Senior Counsel is based on a misconceived notion of the nature of the appellate power that has been conferred on the authority under Section 1