T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the tenants challenging the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The respondent herein is the landlord. The landlord filed RCP.No.42/1998 to evict the tenants under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4) (v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1956. The rent control court dismissed the eviction petition, and on appeal by the landlord the appellate authority has allowed eviction under Sec.11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act.

2. The facts of the case which are necessary for disposing of the revision petition are the following:

The tenanted premises is a shop room in the ground floor of a multi storeyed building. The landlord is occupying a similar shop room adjacent to it on the northern side of the petition schedule room. The same is owned by his wife. And the landlord is conducting jewellery shop named Maharani Jewellers in the said shop room. The petition schedule shop room was purchased by the landlord from its previous owner in year 1997 as per Ext.A1 sale deed. The premises is required for own use of the landlord to expand his business. Apart from the plea of bonafide need, eviction was sought also on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the room in question for more than 1 ½ years. The tenant resisted the eviction sought contending that the need put forth is not bonafide, that the tenant was conducting gold business earlier and is now planning to start textile business. It is also averred that the tenant is a conducting business as commission agent in the schedule room.

3. Both parties adduced evidence, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were produced on the side of the landlord. RW1 was examined on the side of the tenant and they produced Exts.B1 to B5. Exts.C1 and C2 are commissioners reports.

4. The rent control court found that the need alleged by the landlord is bonafide. To enter such a finding the rent control court noted that even though the landlord when examined as PW1 stated that there are other jewellery shops namely, Ayodhya, Chiriyankandath and Alukkas which are conducting business on a large scale it was not specified by him that the said shops are in the same street and he did not refer to any tangible evidence to show that the aforesaid jewellery shops are run in a bigger scale and are getting more business and income. It was also observed that the evidence of PW1 that the said jewellery shops which are conducted in bigger spaces have affected the business of the smaller jewellery shops, was not really substantiated by any documentary evidence. Accordingly, a finding was entered against the landlord on the bonafide need urged. As regards the ground urged under Sec.11(4)(v) of the Act also the rent control court found in favour of the tenants. It was also found that the only source of livelihood of the respondent is the income from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room. In fact, the rent control court found in favour of the tenant on the grounds urged under Section 11(4)(v) after noticing that there was telephone connection in the said room and that the room was being used for commission agency business as spoken to by RW1.

5. The above findings have been reversed by the appellate authority. It was found that the need put forth by the landlord for expanding his business is genuine. As regards the other plea that the tenant has ceased to occupy the room, the appellate authority found that the evidence clearly established that the tenant had ceased to occupy the room and the report of the commissioner Ext.C1 supported the above conclusion.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. P.B. Krishnan contended that the approach made by the appellate authority is clearly faulty and the findings are totally perverse. The learned counsel contended that going by the pleadings of the landlord in the petition, he actually wanted the petition schedule b