Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

1. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in R.C.P.No.159 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Munsiff and Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The said petition was filed seeking eviction of the tenant raising the grounds under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).

2. Facts which led to the filing of the petition seeking eviction are that the petitioner is the owner of building bearing Door Nos. C.C.XXXIX/4444 and XXXIX/4445, which was let out to the 1st respondent, a partnership firm. In continuation to the earlier arrangement, the lease was renewed on 23.6.2008 and the period expired on 30.4.2009. The monthly rent was fixed at 17,325/-. As per the stipulation in the lease agreement, rent payable for the period commencing from 1.5.2009 to 31.3.2010 was Rs.18,191/- together with service charge of Rs.1874/-. The respondents committed default in paying the rent from April, 2010 to July, 2010. The statutory notice issued demanding arrears did not yield any result. According to the petitioner, he is the Managing Director of M/s.Pulickal Medical Foundation which runs Medical Trust Hospital. He is well acquainted with businesses, which are ancillary to the medical field. The wife of the petitioner, Smt.Rosily Antony is the proprietress of M/s. Pulickal Surgical Distributors. Smt.Rosily Antony wants to start an outlet of her proprietary concern in the Medical Trust Hospital Complex. The petition schedule shop rooms are ideal for commencing the said business. She is not having any vacant building in her own name in the Medical Trust Hospital Complex and hence she is dependant on him for the shop rooms. He contended that the need is bona fide and that he is not having any suitable shop room in his possession for putting it to the above use. He also contended that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act.

3. The 1st respondent partnership firm remained ex parte. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed separate objections controverting the contentions of the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, he is the proprietor of "Swastik Sweets" and has been conducting business independently in shop room No.XXXIX/4444 since the year 1990. Though the tenancy had commenced in the year 1974 in the name of a partnership firm, the firm was dissolved in the year 1990 and the room was allotted to the 2nd respondent. He denied that the rent was in arrears and contended that rent at the rate of Rs.10,835/- together with service charges was paid on 10th of October, 2010 for the period upto September, 2010. According to him, the filing of the petition is only a stratagem of the petitioner to evict him and he resolutely challenged the bona fides of filing the petition. He contended that he was entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

4. The 3rd respondent in his objection contended that he was doing independent business in readymade garments in shop room bearing No. XXXIX/4445. He is the proprietor of the said business and denied having any connection with the business being run by the 2nd respondent. He admitted that Rs.18,191/- is the rent payable for both the shop rooms; but according to him, his share for the rent works out to 46% of the above amount. According to him, rent upto the month of September, 2010 has been paid. He also denied the bona fides of the petitioner in filing the petition. According to him, the wife of the petitioner is having her own independent building in the city and the likelihood of the petitioner's wife commencing business in the petition schedule shop room is remote. He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the proviso.

5. The Rent Control Court framed the necessary issues for consideration and the parties were permitted to let in evidence. The petitioner entered the box and gave ev