K. Harilal, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short). The rent control petition was filed on the ground that the landlord bonafide needs the petition scheduled shop room for starting a furniture showroom and he has no other vacant shop room of his own for starting the said business and several other shop rooms are available in the locality to shift the business of the tenant.

2. The tenant resisted the said application contending that the need projected in the petition is a ruse for eviction and he is entitled to get protection under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Both parties adduced evidence on the aforesaid rival contentions and after considering the evidence on record, both the courts concurrently found that the need projected is bonafide and respondent is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso under Section 11(3) of the Act. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid finding is under challenge in this Rent control revision petition.

3. This revision has been filed mainly on the ground that before the Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed an interlocutory application as I.A. No.1134 of 2017 to appoint a Commission to ascertain and report the non-availability of other alternative building in the locality for shifting his business and also for ascertaining the fact that after the disposal of the rent control petition, by granting an order of eviction in favour of the landlord, the landlord has got vacant possession of three other rooms of his own from three other tenants and thereafter he has been occupying the said rooms by conducting the business of T.V., fridge and home appliances etc.

4. The landlord resisted the said application contending that the subsequent events have no fundamental impacts on bonafides of the need. However, after considering the application and objection raised by the landlord, the Appellate Authority dismissed the said application.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matters sought to be ascertained in the aforesaid Commission Application have fundamental impact on the bonafides of the need projected in the petition. Therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have allowed the Commission Application and assessed the impact of the subsequent events on the bonafides of the need, for which an order of eviction was passed earlier, by the Rent Control Court, on the basis of the report to be filed by the Commissioner. In order to substantiate the above contention, the tenant has produced a copy of I.A.No.1134 of 2017 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the said application.

6. We have meticulously considered the averments in the application and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the said application. It is averred that after passing of the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlord has got vacant possession of three other rooms, which were rented out to other tenants and he has started a business of T.V., fridge, home appliances etc. in those three rooms. Further, it is averred that no other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift his business from the tenanted premises. Thus, the Commission Application was intended to ascertain the occupation of other three more rooms by the landlord himself, after passing the order of eviction and the non-availability of other rooms in the locality.

7. Coming to first contention, we find that the tenant himself admitted that after getting vacant possession of three other rooms the landlord himself occupied those rooms by starting a business of T.V., fridge and home appliances etc. Thus, it stands undisputed that the landlord himself occupied the vacant rooms, which he got subsequently, by starting the business of home