1. The revision petitioners are the tenants, who are confronted with an order of eviction passed diversely under Section 11(3) and concurrently under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the courts below. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid divergent and concurrent findings are assailed in these Rent Control Revisions.

2. The questions to be considered in these Revisions are given below:-

i. Can an order of eviction be granted under Sec.11(3) of the Act, on the bona fide need of the landlord, in anticipation of a prospective need, reasonably and likely to arise in future? Should the bona fide need be a current or urgent one?

ii. Whether the desire of a Non Resident Indian, who is employed abroad under the threat of termination or who was employed abroad for a long time and had spent considerable time in his life there, to join with his family and seek an avocation for livelihood in his native place, by doing business in the tenanted building, can be taken as a mere whimsical or fanciful or insincere desire, without bona fides?

iii. Whether the absence of due diligence in conducting the Rent Control Petition or inordinate delay in filing the Rent Control Petition, after issuing notice, demanding vacant possession of the tenanted building, can be considered as proven facts, evidencing lack of bona fides, while determining the Rent Control Petition finally, after trial?

iv. Whether any further enquiry to the proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) or bona fides under Section 11 (10) of the Act is required, if the claim for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act for own occupation is ordered, where the bona fide need for own occupation under Sec. 11(3) of the Act is coupled with reconstruction under Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the act, after evicting the tenant?

3. The respondent/landlord has been working abroad in an oil rig and he was at the verge of dismissal and he was employed there for a long time. He has three tender aged children and they require his love and affection. Their education and character have to be developed at this stage under his guidance, according to him.. He wants to join with his family, at the earliest, and seek a new avocation, in his native place, for livelihood of his family, by doing a business in the tenanted buildings, after getting vacant possession and reconstruction. Thus, he bona fide needs the petition schedule buildings, to start a provision store. So also, the petition schedule buildings require reconstruction as they are very old and dilapidated at the time of purchase itself.

4. The revision petitioners/tenants resisted both claims and contended that the bona fide need is a ruse for eviction, as he is still working abroad. The need is not a bona fide one as it is not current or urgent. Suitable buildings are not available in the locality to shift their business and they are mainly depending upon the income derived from the business in the petition schedule buildings. The buildings are not so old or dilapidated and do not require reconstruction, as claimed by the landlord.

5. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Act, on the finding that the need put forward is not a bona fide one, as he is still working abroad and it is not a current or urgent; but, prospective need only. An order of eviction cannot be granted for a prospective need. Secondly, it was found that there was an inordinate delay in filing the Rent Control Petition, after issuing a notice to the tenants demanding vacant possession of the tenanted buildings. Similarly, the Rent Control Petition was prosecuting without due diligence, as the same was dismissed twice on default and later restored on the files. Thus, the previous conduct would show the lack of bona fides. However, the Rent Control Court further found that the tenants are not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act, as they f