K.HARILAL, J.

This Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad in R.C.A.No.41/2012 whereby the order rejecting the claim of eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short “the Act”) passed in R.C.P. No.24/2012 stands confirmed. The petitioner herein is the landlord, who filed the aforesaid Rent Control Petition seeking an order of eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court passed an order granting eviction under S.11(2)(b) of the Act and disallowing the claim of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings whereby the courts below rejected the claim of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act are challenged in this Revision.

Pleadings

The petition

2. The petitioner is presently staying at Kalleppully, Palakkad and she bona fide requires the petition schedule building, which was rented out to the respondent for her own occupation. The petition schedule building is an old Tharavad house. She wants to shift her residence to the said Tharavad house and give her present house, wherein she is residing with her family, to her married daughter as she had decided to shift her residence from Wayanad to Palakkad.

Counter Statement

3. According to the respondent, there is no bona fides in the need put forward by the petitioner and it is a ruse for eviction only. She contended that earlier, the petitioner had made a promise to sell the petition schedule building to the respondent and subsequently she wriggled out from the promise and entered into an agreement for sale with one Manikandan and it was agreed that she would sell the petition schedule building to the brother of Manikandan by name Kannan for a total consideration of Rs.13,27,500/-. According- to the respondent, R.W.2, one Krishnadas, was a person who is aware of the above fact and also as regards the subsequent agreement made by the petitioner with the said Manikandan.

Evidence

4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, the husband of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from the- part of the petitioner and R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked from the part of the respondent.

The impugned concurrent findings

5. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the courts below concurrently found that the need put forward is not a bona fide one and it is a ruse for eviction only for selling the property to others. The non-examination of the petitioner herself was held to be fatal, though her husband was examined as P.W.1 and he has given evidence projecting the bona fides of the need of the entire family. The daughter, to whom the petitioner has decided to give her present house, was not examined; nor was such a desire stated-in the notice issued to the respondent demanding vacant possession of the petition schedule building. The evidence given by R.Ws.1 and 2 were found to be more probable and their evidence were held probabilise the promise whereby the petitioner agreed to sell the property to R.W.1 and subsequent agreement for sale with Kannan.

Arguments at the Bar

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner exhaustively advanced arguments highlighting the scope of interference under S.20 of the Act and contended that even though the scope and extent of jurisdiction is very limited, re-appreciation is impermissible, and the findings are concurrent, it would be just and proper to interfere with such concurrent findings where those findings are perverse or absurd. It is also contended that the revisional court is inclined to interfere with factual findings, if those findings are based on irrelevant materials or grossly erroneous. Further, it was contended that the factual findings are based on misreading of the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and vitiated by perversity. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments reminding the contour limiting interference un