J.M. James, J.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord (Petitioner in the rent control petition) filed the petition under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, the Act'. The Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla allowed the eviction under S.11(3) if the Act, and dismissed the prayer under other two grounds. The tenant filed R.C.A. No. 1/93. The Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

2. The brief facts for disposal of the case are that, the tenant is in occupation of the centre room in the building having three rooms by paying an enhanced rent of Rs. 75/ per month. The landlord has passed B.Sc. examination with Mathematics as main subject and was teaching in a tutorial college, and his wife is B.Sc., B.Ed. Both of them worked as teachers in Africea. Two years prior to the filing of the petition, they returned and started residing in the building situated behind the petition schedule room. Both the husband and wife bona fide require the petition schedule room for starting a tutorial college. The other two rooms, on either side of the petition schedule room,, have been given vacant possession by the respective tenants to the landlord. Due to the careless use of the room, the floor and walls of the room are damaged by the tenant. There are other vacant rooms available in the locality for conducting Welding business which the tenant is doing in the petition schedule room. The tenant also has got other means of livelihood. The rent is due from the tenant with effect from July 1988. Hence, the petition.

3. When the rent control petition was pending for adducing evidence, and while the landlord was cross examined as P.W.1, he fainted and fell down. Subsequently he died. Therefore, his wife and two children were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. They pursued the rent control petition and completed the evidence.

4. The tenant filed counter contending that the petition schedule room was taken on rent in 1973 by paying a rent of Rs. 40/ per month. It was enhanced on number of occasions. From 1985, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 75/per month. After working in Africa from 1957 to 1986, the original petitioner and his wife came back with huge amount. The wife of the petitioner is employed in Brothern English Medium School, Kumbanadu. She was also in Africa with her husband. They have no experience, ability or health to conduct a tutorial college. There is no damage caused to the floor and walls of the petition scheduled room. The petitioners have got 4 acres of land and also income from other sources, including money lending. The tenant is married having children. He is depending on the income of the Welding work held in the schedule room. The two employees arc also depending on the business. No other rooms are available in the locality. No. rent is in arrears. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The evidence consist of PWs 1 to 3 and Exhibits Al and A2 for the petitioners. The tenant examined C.P. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exhibit B1. The learned Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence, allowed the petition under S.11(3) alone which was later confirmed in appeal.

6. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the tenant has raised only one important question before this court as to whether, consequent on the death,of the original petitioner, the wife can continue to plead the same bona fide need urged by her late husband. We shall, therefore, examine the evidence available on records, and consider the contentions of both sides.

7. In Para.2 of the rent control petition, the original petitioner, late husband of the additional 2nd petitioner, had pleaded that the petition schedule room is needed for conducting a tutorial college along with the other two rooms. It is admitted by both sides that there are three rooms in the building. The petition schedule room is situated in the middle. The landlord filed tw