The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to examine the propriety or legality of the findings made by the lower authorities under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the requirement for proving a genuine need for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act.

L. Manoharan, J.

1. The first counter petitioner tenant in R. C. P. No. 15 of 1979 is the revision petitioner. The first respondent who was the petitioner in the said R C. P. instituted the proceedings under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') for eviction. Trial court allowed eviction under S.11(2)(b) and refused the prayer under S.11(3) of the Act. First respondent preferred R. C. A. No. 5/1983 before the Appellate Authority, the Subordinate Judge. The appeal was allowed. Revision petitioner tenant filed revision before the District Judge; that was dismissed. Against the order of the District Judge the revision petitioner filed revision under S.115 C. P. C. before this court as C. R. P. No. 1719 of 1985-G. One of us (Kalliath, J.) allowed the revision set aside the order of the District Judge and remanded the matter to the trial court.

2. After remand PW 2 was examined and Exts. C1 and C2 were marked on the first respondent's side; and the revision petitioner - tenant was examined as CPW 1. Rent Controller dismissed the petition. Against the said dismissal the first respondent preferred R. C. A. No. 40 of 1989 before the District Judge, Kollam; that was allowed. This revision is directed against the said order of the District Judge.

3. The property in which the petition schedule shed is situated was obtained by respondents 1 and 2 as per a partition in 1959. Second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. She executed Ext. A5 settlement by which she released her right in favour of the first respondent. First respondent's husband let out the petition schedule shed to the deceased husband the revision petitioner as per Ext. A1 rent deed. The petitioner alleged that rent was paid only up to September 1976. She also contended, the shed has been demolished for the convenience and security of her residence. Revision petitioner denied the allegation of arrears of rent from October 1976 and maintained that rent till December 1978 was paid to the second respondent the mother of the first respondent. She also contended that her deceased husband obtained lease of the land for constructing shed and constructed the same; she claimed benefit under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1/1964). She denied the need alleged by the first respondent. Second respondent, mother of the first respondent in her objection questioned the validity of Ext. A5. She maintained that Ext. A5 did not take effect and denied the need alleged by the petitioner.

4. As regards the claim under S.106 of Act 1/64, before remand the Rent Controller passed an order referring the said question to the Land Tribunal for adjudication. The first respondent preferred R. C. A. 13/1980, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. The order appealed against was set aside. It will be noted that under S.106 of Act 1/1964 the lease of the land must be for commercial or industrial purpose and the tenant should have constructed building for such commercial or industrial purpose before the 20th May 1967. The genuineness of Ext. A1 rent deed is not denied by the revision petitioner. Ext. A1 rent deed is dated 21-4-1969 and the same is with respect to the building. Therefore, evidently the revision petitioner cannot claim the benefit under S.106 of Act 1/1964. Apart from the same, the remand judgment of this court would show that the only ground that survived for consideration after the remand was the one under S.11(3) of the Act. In judgment in R. C. A. 5/1983 it is stated that the order under S.11(2)(b) was got vacated by the tenant as per S.11(2)(c) of the Act.

5. Now the question for consideration is whether the first respondent is entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. After remand the jurisdiction of the court would be circumscribed and limited by the remand judgment. As has already noted, a revision under S.20 of the Act before the District Judge against the judgme