P.Q. Barkath Ali, J.

1. In this revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the tenant challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA 14/2002 dated February 7,2009 setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Hosdurg in Rent Control Petition 50/1999 dated January 31,2002 ordering eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act and remanding the matter to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal in the light of the amendment of pleadings allowed in the original petition and in the counter statement of the tenant.

2. The landlady who is the revision respondent filed Rent Control Petition 50/1999 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Hosdurg claiming eviction of the petition schedule building under Sections 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Act on the allegation that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears and that she bona fide needs the building for starting a hotel business for her husband who is a dependent on her. The tenant/revision petitioner resisted the claim for eviction on the ground that there are no arrears of rent and that the bona fide need put forward by the landlady is not genuine. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady was examined as PW 1 and her husband as PW 2 and she produced Exts. A1 to A6. On the side of the tenant, RW 1 was examined. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim for eviction under Section 11(2), but ordered eviction under Section t1 (3) of the Act. Challenging the said order the tenant filed RCA 14/2002 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Court (Ad hoc) II, Kasaragod. Pending the appeal the husband of the landlady died. Therefore the landlady filed IA1278/2008 before the Appellate Authority to amend the Rent Control Petition to the effect that notwithstanding the death of her husband, the need subsists and that at present she requires the petition schedule shop room to conduct hotel business. The tenant also filed IA 276/2008 before the Appellate Authority seeking amendment of his counter statement to raise an additional plea that on account of the death of the husband of the landlady, the claim for eviction made under Section 11(3) of the Act no longer subsists. The Appellate Authority allowed both the above petitions and remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal considering the fact that further evidence is necessitated in the case. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority.

3. Sri Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant citing the decision in Aniyeri Jayarajaq v. Valiya Kooleri Koorma Yesoda, 2003 (2) KLJ 27 argued that it was for the bona fide need of the husband of the landlady the eviction was sought and that on the death of the husband of the landlady, the present need is abated and that therefore the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. He challenges the order allowing amendment of the Rent Control Petition also.

4. Sri Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the revision respondents argued that the bona fide need of the landlady has to be examined as on the date of the institution of the proceedings and that by reason of the death of the husband of the landlady, the bona fide need would not come to an end and that therefore the Appellate Authority is perfectly justified in allowing the amendment of the petition and remanding the matter to the Trial Court. He cited the decisions in—

1. Shakuntala Baiand Others v. Narayan Das and Others, 2004 (5) SCC 772

2. Prema Ramakrishnan v. Salmath, 2006 (3) KLT 284

3. Usha P. Kuvelkarand Others v. Ravindra Subrai Dalvi, 2008 (1) SCC 330

4. Manovikas Kendra Rehabilitation & Research Institute v. Prem Prakash Lodha, 2005 (7) SCC 224.

5. Therefore the main question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether, on the death of the husband of the landlady for whose need eviction was sought, the proceedings are abated.

6. In Aniyeri Jayara