Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

2. This revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is against concurrent findings holding that the landlord bona fide needs the building for personal use to commence an activity in soda manufacturing. The tenant is not entitled to raise any plea under the second proviso to Section 11(3), since it is, primarily, a residential building and the tenant has no case that she was conducting any business there. The fundamental plea of the tenant before the courts below was built on what was projected as bona fide denial of the title of the landlord. That stands concurrently found against the tenant.

3. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner argued, inter alia, that Ext.A1, which is relied on by the landlord as the title deed, is a sham one and it was never intended to take effect though it was executed by the person now arrayed as the tenant. It is further pointed out that the execution of Ext.A11 (rent deed) nearly two days after Ext.A1 is also shrouded in suspicion. He, therefore, argued that Exts.A1 and A11 can be