K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

1. The tenant is in revision before us challenging the reversing judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in RCA No.178 of 2012. The landlord had filed RCP No.246 of 2011 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur seeking an order of eviction against the tenant alleging grounds 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). The ground under Section 11(2)(b) was not pressed by way of an endorsement made before the trial of the Rent Control Petition. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition was tried only on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act.

2. According to the landlord, the tenanted shop room was needed by him for the purpose of his wife to start a gift house. It is stated in the Rent Control Petition that his wife was conducting the said business in a rented shop room. The business was not doing well and there was no sufficient income even to pay the rent properly. Therefore, it is contended that, the tenanted shop room was the most suitable for the purpose of shifting the said business. The tenant filed objections and contested the Rent Control Petition. It is stated in the counter statement that the petition is malafide and vindictive. The case of the tenant was that, there was an agreement to sell the shop room to her husband. The agreement was executed by the original landlord. During the pendency of the said agreement, the property was purchased by the present landlord. Therefore, the husband of the tenant had filed O.S.No.14 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Thalassery. The said suit was dismissed but, it is stated that the first appeal is pending before this Court. In view of the said proceedings, the tenant disputed the right of ownership asserted by the landlord. The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the above pleadings.

3. The evidence consists of Exhibits A1 to A3 documents and oral evidence of the landlord as PW1 on the side of the landlord. The tenant did not adduce any evidence. When the landlord was examined as PW1 in cross examination, he has stated that the tenanted shop room is part of a larger building having four shop rooms of equal dimensions. To a pointed question as to who was in possession of Room No.VI/93, his answer was that he could not remember. Regarding shop room No.VI/94 also, he stated that he could not remember. He stated that the number of the tenanted shop room was VI/96. Thereafter, he has stated that shop room No.VI/97 is in possession. VI/98 is also stated to be is in his possession. He has further gone on to state that, the shop rooms in his possession are remaining locked. He has also deposed that all the shop rooms were having the same area. Placing reliance on the admissions of the landlord, the Rent Control Court found that the landlord had not pleaded any special reasons for not occupying vacant shop rooms that were in his possession. In view of the above, eviction was declined by the Rent Control Court.

4. The landlord challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in RCA No.178 of 2012. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the contentions afresh and took a different view of the matter. According to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant had not pleaded that the landlord was in possession of other vacant rooms. However, it has been elicited in cross examination that there are vacant rooms in the possession of the landlord. Relying on the dictum laid down by this Court in Chandran v. Sunil Kumar [2004(3) KLT 420], the Appellate Authority found that subsequent events brought out in cross examination could not be relied upon to non-suit the landlord, unless the pleadings are amended and such facts are brought on record. In the absence of pleadings, it is held that the tenant should not be held entitled to take advantage of the facts brought out in cross examination. In the above view of the matter, the Rent Control Appellat