The judgment establishes the principle that the need put forward by the landlords for eviction must be examined on the presumption that it is genuine, and the burden is on the tenants to prove that the buildings in their possession are not 'reasonably sufficient' for their business, as required by Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

K. Surendra Mohan, J.

The tenants are in revision challenging the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur in R.C.A.No.19 of 2013. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the order under revision, set aside the order of the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi in R.C.P.No.30 of 2010, dismissing the Rent Control Petition. The petitioners are conducting a business in timber from the tenanted shop room, which forms part of a larger building that belongs to the respondents. The respondents/landlords sought eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for short). According to the landlords, they require the shop room along with the other rooms in the building for the purpose of starting a super market. According to them, many of them have returned to their native land, leaving their employment in the gulf countries. They have no other source of income or building of their own and therefore want to start a supermarket. It was also contended that the tenants had, in their possession, other shop rooms close by, which were sufficient for them to conduct their business. Therefore, the landlords invoked the ground under Section 11(3) also.

2. The tenants disputed the need that was put forward by the landlords. According to them, they needed the tenanted shop room for the conduct of their business. They were conducting a business in wooden furniture. For the purpose, the finished timber sections were brought and stocked in the tenanted shop room. The furniture that was made out of the timber stocked were displayed and sold in the other rooms occupied by them. Therefore, it was contended that, the activity that was carried on in the tenanted shop room, was an integral part of the timber business that they were carrying on dealing in timber.

3. The Rent Control Court tried the case on the above pleadings. The evidence on the side of the landlords consists of Exts.A1 to A10 documents and the oral evidence of P.W.1. On the side of the tenants, Exts.B1 to B11 were marked and R.W.1 was examined as witness. Exts.C1 and C2 commission reports were marked.

4. The Rent Control Court considered the evidence on record and found that the landlords had not succeeded in establishing any of the grounds put forward. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed. The landlords challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.A.No.19 of 2013. Before the Appellate Authority, both sides filed petitions under 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional documents. As per orders passed in I.A.Nos.3598 of 2014 and 670 of 2015, the landlords were permitted to produce documents, which were marked as Exts.A1 to A14. As per order in I.A. No. 632 of 2015, the tenants produced and marked Ext.B12 document. The Appellate Authority, on a re appreciation of the evidence, including the additional documents produced, found that, the Rent Control Court had erred in dismissing the claim of the landlords. The Appellate Authority found that the landlords were entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Rent Control Court was set aside. The aggrieved tenants are in revision before us.

5. According to the Senior Counsel Sri. Krishnanunni, firstly, the additional documents permitted to be produced by the Appellate Authority by both sides have not been properly proved. Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Authority passed, placing reliance on the said additional documents also, is liable to be set aside. Secondly, it is pointed out that the Appellate Authority had seriously erred in not finding in favour of the tenants under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the business that is being carried on by the tenants, comprises of different stages. The first stage i