The landlord must substantiate the bona fide need for the premises, and the tenant's dependence on the income from the premises is crucial in rent control cases.

Harilal, J.

1. The petitioner and the respondent are landlord and tenant respectively in the rent control petition. The rent control petition was filed under sections 11(3), 11(4) and 11(4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act'). After considering the evidence on record and in view of the counter statement filed by the respondent, the Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petition under sections 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The parties are referred to as in the original petition.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after re-appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the petition under section 11(3) of the Act and dismissed the claims under section 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii). Thus the divergent findings of the court below under section 11(3) of the Act have come up for consideration in this revision petition under section 20 of the Act.

3. According to the petitioner, her son Abdul Nazar was working in Malaysia and he has lost his job and he is depending on the petitioner for the petition schedule shop room to start a grocery shop. The petitioner is not having any other building in her possession for the said purpose. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent is not depending mainly upon the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room and that other vacant shop rooms are available in the locality.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the bona fide need projected in the petition is not genuine. According to the respondent, the petitioner's son Abdul Nazar is not a dependant of the petitioner and the averment that he has lost job and he is planning to return to India, is not correct. It is stated that he is conducting plantain sale in whole sale and retail in the petition schedule shop room by availing loan from the bank and he is living out of the income derived from the petition schedule shop room and there are no other suitable buildings in the locality for shifting his business.

5. The evidence available on record consists of oral testimony of PW1, RW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.C1.

6. Going by the order passed by the trial court, it is seen that the trial court dismissed the claim under section 11(3) mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce passport oh her son to prove that he has lost his employment abroad and returned to India. But in the appeal, the petitioner has produced the old and new passports of the petitioner's son under Order XLI rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same were marked in evidence as Exts.A4 and A5. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent did not get an opportunity to controvert the evidence brought out by Exts.A4 and A5, as the same was produced in appeal court only. Going by the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, it could be seen that even though Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 were produced and marked in evidence in the appellate court, the appellate court has not relied upon the said passport for reversing the findings of the trial court. According to the appellate court, the trial court is not justified in discarding the claim of bona fide need merely on non production of the passport or the document to show that PW1 has lost his job. It is the case of the petitioner that though her son Abdul Nazar was working abroad he has lost his employment there and even thereafter he has been working temporarily.

7. We have perused ExtsA4 and A5. Going by Ext.A4 it is seen that, as contended by the petitioner, there is an endorsement by immigration authority that the said Abdul Nazar was employed temporarily in west Malaysia. As rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, we are also of the opinion that a person working abroad cannot be insisted to abandon the job and remain in idle awaiting t