Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, "1965 Rent Act", for short.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioner is the tenant of a residential building. Three persons joined to file the petition for eviction. First among them was a 90 years' old widow of a Government servant. The second and third were her sons, the latter among whom was a retired Central Government servant, then aged 65 years. The need urged is that the mother, the second son and his wife wanted to return to their home town and reside in their own building. The elder son, who was the 2nd petitioner in the rent control petition, died pending that petition. The tenant challenged the need set up as not one which is bona fide and pleaded that she and her husband reside in the building and they have no other accommodation. She also attempted to say that the landlord had sold out about 1= cents of land and that such sale militates the plea of bona fide need. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority accepted the testimony of the 3rd petitioner in the rent control petition, who, along with his mother and wife wants to stay in the building, eviction of which is sought for.

4. The courts below have concurrently held that the building is required by the landlords as noted above. Having considered the submissions in that regard which are essentially in the realm of appreciation of evidence, we see that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have duly considered the pleadings and evidence and have decided the case in accordance with law, justice, equity and good conscience, which are specifically prescribed in Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, for guidance. There is no ground of illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned decisions.

5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant argued that the building is situated in an area to which the 1965 Rent Act does not apply. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mentions that the Rent Control Court from whose decision this revision arises has, in a different litigation, found that the area 'Ayiloor' is not an area notified under the 1965 Rent Act so as to make that Act applicable to the said area. A question as to what are the boundaries and limits of a particular geographical territory is essentially a question of fact.

6. When the 1965 Rent Act was brought into force, the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "1960 Panchayats Act", was in force. Nenmara Panchayat had Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages. Going by its definition in Section 2(21) of the 1960 Panchayats Act, 'Panchayat area' means any local area declared as such by the Government or such other authority as may be authorised by the Government for the purposes of that Act. The provision in the 1960 Panchayats Act relating to repeal shows that the fact situation available as on the date of that Act would be modified only if there is any subsequent action by the Government in that regard. Therefore, Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages stood in Nenmara Panchayat under the 1960 Panchayats Act and there is no material to show that the said fact situation has thereafter been varied. Nenmara Panchayat is included in the Schedule of the 1965 Rent Act. Therefore, the provisions of the 1965 Rent Act were applicable to Nenmara Panchayat meaning thereby that area identified as Nenmara Panchayat, including Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages. Once the provisions of the 1965 Rent Act thus applied to that geographical limit which takes in Nenmara, Ayiloor and Nelliyampathy Villages, such application of the 1965 Rent Act does not get watered down even if there is any delimitation exercise carried out by the competent statutory authority in terms of the