Annie John, J.

The revision petitioner herein is the landlord who filed a petition for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act for short). The respondent is the tenant of the petition schedule shop room.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is as follows:

The respondent is carrying on the business of selling meat, fish etc. The rate of rent of the petition schedule shop room is Rs.2800/- per month. The petitioner is having a flour mill and the same is situated 3 km south of the petition schedule shop room. He bona fide needs the petition schedule shop room for conducting the business in rice, wheat, atta flour etc. He has no other vacant rooms in his possession in the locality suitable for conducting the said business. The petition schedule shop room is situated in a three storied building and all the shop rooms in the ground floor are occupied by the tenants. The first floor of the building is a big hall and, though lying vacant, is not at all suitable for the petitioner to conduct the business. The second floor of the building is occupied by one Zakaria. The respondent is a retired employee and he is getting Rs.20,000/- by way of pension. The respondent is having other source of income, apart from the business in the petition schedule shop room. There are suitable buildings available in the locality for the respondent to shift the business.

3. The respondent/tenant has resisted the claim for eviction contending that there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner in filing such a petition. The petitioner had earlier preferred another petition under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of rent as RCP No. 36 of 2011, which was allowed on 29.03.2014 and accordingly, the respondent is paying the enhanced rent. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped form preferring the present petition in the next year under Section 11(3) of the Act. Even though the petitioner had admitted that he is already conducting business within the same Municipal area, he has suppressed the exact location of the building. There is no vacant rooms other than the petitioner's first room in the ground floor.

4. On the side of the petitioner, he himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the respondent, he was examined as DW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced.

5. The Rent Control Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the petition for eviction as per order dated 20.07.2016 in RCP No. 40 of 2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred RCA No. 23 of 2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority-II, Alappuzha. After, re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the finding entered by the Rent Control Authorities that since the landlord has not pleaded in his petition that he was in possession of another room at the time of filing of the petition, the need is not bona fide, is erroneous. The Rent Control Authorities failed to appreciate the importance of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The burden of proving that the landlord is in possession of another room and that the said room is sufficient for the landlord to start his business is on the tenant and this requirement was not substantiated by the tenant. During cross examination, the petitioner has admitted that he has rented out the west end room in January, 2016. The Rent Control Petition was filed on 19.09.2015. At the time of giving evidence, he was not in occupation of any vacant rooms in his possession. Even in the objection also, the respondent has not raised any contention that at the time of filing of the petition, the landlord was in possession of another vacant room. It is after the filing of the petition that the west end shop room in the ground floor of the plaint sched