Mary Joseph, J.

The tenant is in revision against the concurrent findings of both the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority on arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation and consequent passing of order of eviction against him under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act').

2. Eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant was sought for by the landlord who is the respondent in this revision petition under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent as per a rental agreement dated 23.6.2011 had leased out the petition scheduled room to the tenant and he had been continuing in possession of the same since then. The respondent purchased the said room by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing No. 1211/13 of S.R.O., Chadayamangalam. The factum of purchase was intimated to the revision petitioner on 6.5.2013 and had demanded the payment of rent to him from April 2013 onwards. The revision petitioner had attorned to the respondent and paid the rent to him till December, 2013. Thereafter, he kept the rent in arrears without any reasonable cause. Then a need also arose for the landlord to start a business in ready made garments. The petition schedule room being the only one belonging to him, he thought it fit to get it vacated. Accordingly, a legal notice demanding arrears of rent and vacant surrender of the tenanted premises on the reason of own occupation was sent on 7.3.2014 which was not acceded to by the revision petitioner. Therefore, the respondent approached the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode by filing the petition seeking eviction as R.C.P. No. 134/2014 on the twin grounds as aforesaid.

4. The revision petitioner/tenant filed objection denying the pleas regarding arrears of rent and bona-fide need. According to him, rent was paid directly to the landlord till December 2013 and thereafter to the respondent's son till October, 2014 as instructed by him and therefore, rent is not in arrears. The further contention was that the respondent being an affluent person, there is absolutely no requirement for him to start a business in readymade garments and the need alleged is not a bona fide one. Yet other contentions were also raised to the effect that the respondent has other rooms in his vacant possession and petition schedule room is not at all a convenient room to suit his proposed business and that the revision petitioner is mainly depending on the income derived by him from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and no suitable rooms are available in the locality to shift his business. Raising the contentions as aforesaid, the revision petitioner urged for dismissal of the R.C.P.

5. R.C.P. No. 134/2014 was tried by the Rent Control Court. The respondent mounted the box and deposed as PW1. Exts.A1 to A3, A3(a) and A3(b) were also marked on his side. On the side of the revision petitioner, the tenant himself mounted the box and deposed as RW1. Exts.B1 to B10 were also marked.

6. The evidence was appreciated by the Rent Control Court and found that there was arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent and also that the need projected by the landlord to start a business on readymade garments is a bona fide one and accordingly, eviction was ordered under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

7. The aggrieved revision petitioner has approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Court-IV, Kozhikode in R.C.A.No.125/2016 and the appellate authority, on its appreciation of evidence, found both the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need sustainable ones and accordingly, affirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and the order of eviction passed on the twin grounds.

8. Against the concurrent findings, the aggrieved tenant has approached this Court in revision. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this revision are referr