The burden to prove the ingredients of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act is on the tenant, and it does not shift. The tenant must establish the non availability of alternate accommodation by adducing evidence, and the court's interference under S.20 of the Rent Control Act is limited to curing illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the orders of the authorities below.

S. Krishnan Unni, J.

1. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the concurrent orders ofeviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority underS.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of revision may be stated asfollows. The petition schedule property is a shop building in ChanganacheryMunicipality, bearing No. 25/8. It was owned by one Pathumma Beevi wholeased it to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 on 8th June 1978 under Ext.A3 for a period of one year. After the expiry of the said period, the rent wasenhanced to Rs. 150. On 25th February 1983 Pathumma Beevi assigned theproperty to 2nd petitioner as guardian of 1st petitioner who was a minor at thattime, under Ext. Al. First petitioner is the son of 2nd petitioner. After theassignment the tenant was paying rent to 2nd petitioner and the rent fell intoarrears after March, 1991. The 1st petitioner attained majority on 7th April1993. On 23rd August 1993 he issued Ext. A4 notice through his advocateclaiming possession of the property to conduct a business of his own in Paints.The tenant sent Ext. B-3 reply alleging that it is only a ruse to evict him, that ifhe is evicted his main source of income will be lost and that there is no otheraccommodation available to shift his business. The petition was filed claimingeviction under S.11 (2) (b) arrears of rent, S.11(3) bona fide need andS.11(4)(ii) stating that the tenant has used the building in such a manner as todestroy or reduce its value or utility permanently.

3. Exts. A1 to A9, B1 to B3, C1 and C1(a) were marked. PWs 1 to 5 andC.P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined,The Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence found that the tenant has keptthe rent in arrears and that the landlord has proved his bona fide need to getpossession of the property, and accordingly passed an order for eviction.

4. The tenant challenged the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.A. No. 43 of1995 and the landlord filed a Gross Objection challenging the dismissal of thepetition under S.11 (4) (ii) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authorityconfirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal and theGross Objection. Tenant has filed this revision.

5. The tenant has subsequently deposited the arrears of rent and only theeviction order under S.11(3) of the Act survives for consideration in theseproceedings. To put the facts briefly as revealed from the evidence, thepetition schedule building was acquired by the 1st petitioner in 1983 under Ext.Al when he was a minor for which his mother 2nd petitioner acted as guardian.He has studied only upto Pre degree. It is not disputed that the first petitionerwas not very successful in his studies and two attempts made by him in thePre degree examination met with failure. The 1st petitioner belongs to abusiness community. His father, father's brother and his own brothers are welloff. His paternal uncle is employed in the Gulf countries. One of his elderbrothers is employed in a bank and another brother is conducting somefinance business. He is staying with his father whois conducting a factory. The bona fide need alleged by him is that he wanted tostart a business in Paints and his paternal uncle has assured him financialsupport. The 1st petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of hisexamination. He attained majority only on 7th April 1993, claimed possessionof the property under Ext. A4 in August 1993 and filed the petition on 3rdMarch 1994. Both authorities below have considered the evidence and foundthat the bona fide need advanced by the 1st petitioner is real, reasonable andacceptable.He has gone to the box and examined himself as PW 1 and gave evidence insupport of his case. He has produced Exts. A6 and A7 letters received by himfrom two Companies, offering to help him in the business.

6. One of the grounds of attack to the claim advanced by the landlord wasthat it is only a pretext to evict the tena