A.M. Babu, J.

1. Rent Control Court, Palakkad allowed R.C.P 34/2013. Tenant's appeal, R.C.A.27/2014, was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad. The tenant has preferred this revision.

2. Eviction of the tenant was sought under Section 11(2)(b) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act"). The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under both the grounds. The order of eviction passed under section 11(2) (b) was set aside by the Appellate Authority. For, the petition was filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. The landlord fairly conceded before the Appellate Authority that the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) would not stand. What remains is the ground under section 11(3).

3. The landlord owns a multi-storied building/shopping complex. The tenant is in occupation of a room on the ground floor of the building. That room is under the stair case. Therefore the parties call it a 'stair case room'. It measures 80 square feet. The landlord appointed a person to be the manager of the shopping complex. An office room is provided to the manager in the building complex itself. The above are admitted facts.

4. According to the landlord, he wants to shift the office of the shopping complex to the 'stair case room'. This precisely is the need alleged by him. The tenant contends that there is no such need for the landlord. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found the need to be bona fide.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman Vs. Sardar Dastur School Trust, AIR 2005 SC 996. The Supreme Court holds that (i) a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant, (ii) the question to be asked by a Judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest, (iii) the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life and (iv) the bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. Another decision on the same point cited by the learned counsel was Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sunderji, AIR 1999 SC 3864. We shall consider whether the landlord did prove his need to be genuine or bona fide. We will have to discuss the evidence at some length.

6. Admittedly the landlord has employed a care taker or manager at his building complex. The duties of the manager are collecting rent from tenants, attending to their complaints, doing timely repairs to the building, carrying out periodical maintenance et cetera. Necessarily he should have an office room. He has or had one. The parties were at dispute as to where exactly was the office room situated. Another dispute was about the condition of the room where the office was housed. The landlord contended that the office was functioning in a temporary dilapidated shed which stood on the terrace of the building. Therefore, according to him, the office should be shifted to the 'stair case room' on the ground floor. The tenant disputes the allegation that the office is functioning in a dilapidated shed on the terrace of the building. He contends that one of the rooms in the building is used as the office room. Therefore, according to him, there is no need to shift the office to anywhere.

7. PW1 is the landlord. His manager is PW2. RW1 is the tenant. All of them filed affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief. PW1 stated in his affidavit that the office of the building complex was housed in a temporary shed on the top of the building. PW2 also stated so in his affidavit. The temporary nature of the shed was challenged by the tenant in the cross-