The judgment establishes that the bona fide need for eviction must be considered in light of the suitability and modern facilities of the proposed residence, and the ownership and possession of an unsuitable building do not fall under the first proviso to section 11(3) of the Act.

K. Harilal, J.

1. The revision petitioner herein is the counter petitioner in R.C.P. No.27 of 2011 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the appellant in R.C.A. No.3 of 2013 on the files of the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties are referred to as in the RCP.

2. The aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner/respondent herein seeking eviction of the counter petitioner/revision petitioner herein from the plaint schedule property under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). According to the petitioner/respondent herein she is the owner of the petition schedule building and the ground floor and car shed of the same were let out to the counter petitioner by virtue of Exts.A2 and A3. The counter petitioner is a builder by profession doing construction work and when he required more space for smooth functioning of the business, he had taken the 1st floor of the building also by virtue of Ext.A3. Further the petitioner/respondent herein contended that the building in which she is residing at present is very old and has become decrepit. According to her, the present building is not sufficiently strong and spacious and is unfit to reside. She is in need of the petition schedule building for the residence of herself and her family. Besides the counter petitioner has kept the rent in arrear for the last six months.

3. The counter petitioner resisted the petition and contended that the bonafide need projected in the petition is only a ruse for eviction and the building in which the petitioner/respondent herein has been residing is suitable and convenient for residence. It is also contended that since she is in possession of another building, the petitioner/respondent herein is not entitled to get the benefit under the first proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act. According to the counter petitioner, the income from the business in the petition schedule building is the main source of income for his livelihood and that suitable building are not available in the locality to shift his business from the petition schedule building. Hence the counter petitioner prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence which consisted of oral testimony of PW1, CPW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B2(d). After considering the aforesaid evidence, the Rent Controller allowed the petition as prayed for.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the counter petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate authority also confirmed the findings of the rent controller as such and dismissed the appeal. Thus the concurrent findings, whereby the courts below found that the need highlighted in the petition is a bona fide one and the same is not hit by the first proviso and the counter petitioner is not entitled to get the protection under the second proviso of section 11(3) of the Act, are challenged in this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent.

7. Though this revision petition has been filed raising various grounds, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the counter petitioner are mainly focused against the findings on the bona fide need and more particularly, the first proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the counter petitioner contends that absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the building wherein the petitioner/respondent has been residing is in a dilapidated condition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the counter petitioner, the said building is suitable for her residence and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it could be reasonably presumed that the bona fide need projected is only a pretext for eviction. Second