K.S. Radhakrishnsn, J.

1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Revision is filed against the order in LA. No. 1723 of 1998 in R.C. P. No. 18 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller/Additional Munsiff, Kasargod.

2. The application was preferred under O.6 R.17 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.23(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 for amending the counter affidavit dated 19-8-1986 so as to seek the benefit of the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. Rent Control court dismissed the application which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

3. Rent Control petition was preferred by the respondent's herein under S.11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. Rent Control court allowed eviction under S.11(2), however, dismissed the application under S.11(3), Landlords took up the matter in appeal, R.C.A. No.5 of 1988. Appellate Authority found bona fide need in favour of the landlords and granted protection to the tenant under the second proviso to S.11(3). Tenant then filed R.C.R.P. No. 26 of 1989 and the landlord filed R.C.R.P. No. 30 of 1989. Both the revision petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 30-5-1992. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the revision authority upholding the findings of the Appellate Authority.

4. Landlords challenged the order of the revisional authority before this court in O.P. No. 12713 of 1992 and the tenant filed O.P. No. 17170 of 1992 under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Learned single Judge of this court by common judgment dated 27-3-1998 dismissed O.P. No. 17170 of 1992. Learned Judge set aside the findings of the authorities below ' regarding entitlement under the second proviso to S.11(3) of.the Act but granted opportunity to the tenant to adduce evidence to claim protection under the second proviso. We may refer to the relevant portion of the judgment, which reads as follows:

"In my view the authorities must look for clear evidence on the side of the tenant regarding his income from all sources, his income from the petition schedule building and his capacity to pay the rent. Obviously this could be established with reference to documents and other relevant evidence. Considering that lam interfering with the findings in that behalf rendered by the authorities below in this proceeding under Art.227 of the Constitution on the ground that the approach to that question made by the authorities was not proper I think that it is proper to give the tenant a further opportunity to establish his claim for protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. I am of the view that the said aspect requires to be re-tried by the Rent Controller. To that extent I find merit in O.P. No. 12713 of 1992."

Against the above judgment tenant took up the matter before the apex court by filing special leave petition which was dismissed.

5. Tenant then filed the present application, LA. No. 1723 of 1998 for amendment of the counter affidavit seeking the benefit of the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act also. It will be profitable to extract the amendment sought for, which is as follows:

9 (a) That the petitioners are owning the possession other buildings (sic) in the Uppala town adjacent to the petition A-schedule building. After the institution of the Rent Control Petition the petitioners have constructed several shop buildings near the petition A schedule building and they are in vacant possession of the. Same. Those new buildings are numbered as Ward No. X-289 to 295 of Mangalapady Grama Panchayat. Hence the petitioners are not entitled to get any order of eviction as provided under the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

The above application was filed on 23-10-1998. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated as follows:

"The petitioner in the R.G.P. have constructed these buildings during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition. The events came into existence subsequent to the filing