Important Points:
" The petitioner has vacant possession of an area having 1200 sq.ft. of the same building, adjacent to the petition schedule building and she has got vacant possession of that portion in 2016
" Both limbs of the 2nd proviso are conjunctive and the burden of proof is on the respondent/tenant-No positive evidence has been adduced to prove that he is mainly depending upon the income from the tenanted premises-No evidence has been adduced to prove the non-availability of the vacant building in the locality, by the respondent-The respondent is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso.
" The need is bona fide and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to section 11(3) of the Act-The order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act is confirmed.

K.Harilal, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with an order of eviction, passed concurrently under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control Act), 1965 [Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act]. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition).

2. The petitioner filed RCP.No.136/2016 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. According to the petitioner, she bona fide needs the petition schedule building for starting a hardware shop. The petition schedule building is a portion of the ground floor of the building by name, Radhakrishna building, Cloth Bazar Road, Ernakulam. The entire ground floor having a total area of 1600 Sq.ft. belongs to the petitioner. She is in possession of the rest of the area on the ground floor having 1200 Sq.ft., which was earlier in the possession of a tenant, and now she got vacant possession of the said portion in June, 2016. According to her, she wants to start the aforesaid Hardware and Cement shop, using the entire ground floor. It is alleged that the portion of the building, which is in her possession, is having no road frontage. According to her, after getting vacant possession of the petition schedule building, she intends to remove the wall in between the petition schedule shop room and northern portion of the petition schedule building and to make necessary arrangements in the entire ground floor, so that she will get road frontage to the entire ground floor, and the same can be utilized for the proposed business. It is further averred that she has no other vacant and suitable buildings of her own in her possession to start the said proposed business. But, several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent from the tenanted premises. Therefore, she is entitled to get an order of eviction, under Section 11(3) of the Act. Further, it was alleged that the respondent has, in his possession many other buildings in the same city, which is absolutely reasonable for his requirement. He has in his possession another building in Cloth Bazar, very near to the petition schedule building and the said building was taken out from one Mr.Rafek Sait. That apart, he has another building at Broadway, Ernakulam and the said building was taken out from the Wakf Board. In the aforesaid buildings, the respondent has been conducting a cloth business. Further, it was alleged that the respondent has sub-let the portion of the petition schedule building to different persons on daily rent basis, without her consent. Thus, she is entitled to get an order of eviction under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

3. The respondent filed objection contending that the need projected is not bona fide and it is a pretext for eviction only. He denied the allegation that he has in his possession many other buildings in the same city and those buildings are reasonably sufficient for his business purpose. According to him, he is depending mainly on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule building and no other buildings are available in the locality to shift his business from the tenanted premises. With the aforesaid averments, he prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Petition.

4. On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that the need projected in the petition is bona fide and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso and further found that the respondent has in his possession another building, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city and thereby granted an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

5. Heard Shri.R.D.Shenoy, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/tenant and Shri. Premachandra Prabhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner/landl