T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant of a building who is conducting a printing press under the name and style 'Jayabarath Printers'. The entire building is a three storied one and the portion in occupation of the tenant is in the ground floor. The tenancy started in the year 1988 and the present landlord purchased the building in the year 2000 and the tenant has attorned to the respondent herein. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the revision petition.

2. The respondent/landlord sought eviction for own occupation for the purpose of his son, to start a super market. The building is in Edappal town. It was contended that it is a fast developing area and the idea is to start a super market using the petition schedule room and the adjoining room. The entire building is having on its northern side Ponnani-Palakkad road and there is another passage from the eastern side also. The landlord also contended that his son Nizar is not having any job or income and he is very poor in his studies and had studied only upto 7th standard, after spending 10 years. The landlord was in a foreign country and has returned now and settled in his native place. The son Nizar is the eldest and the landlord has persuaded him to appear for the SSLC examination. But he is not interested in studying. It was also submitted that the petition schedule room, if evicted, the landlord will have that room by the side of a larger room lying vacant and there will be two passages to the place, one from the Ponnani - Palakkad road and the other from the eastern public road. The larger room which is lying vacant, is just on the southern side of the petition schedule room.

3. The tenant, in the objection raised various contentions. The bonafide need pleaded was disputed and it was pleaded that the son of the landlord, Shri Nizar is a student and there is no urgent need for him to do the business. It was pointed out that the landlord is having other several rooms in his possession in the same building. The landlord, is in possession of another ground floor room which is numbered as Room No.5 in the sketch attached to the commission report. The same is close to the room lying vacant which is having 1200 sq. ft. area and therefore both can be used for starting the business. There are rooms lying in the first and second floors of the same building which can also be used by the landlord for doing business.

4. According to the petitioner tenant, the immediate provocation in filing an eviction petition is that the tenant had made a complaint to the local authority when the landlord made a leach pit on the back side of the petition schedule room. Exorbitant rent was also demanded. It was also pleaded that his entire family consisting of his wife and three daughters as well as his mother, are depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building, for their livelihood. The tenant has got only 20 cents of property.

5. P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined on the side of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A9 have been marked. Exts.C1 to C4 are Commission reports and plans. The tenant has produced Exts.B1 to B4 and R.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and C.W.1 is the court witness.

6. Apart from the ground under Section 11(3), another plea was there under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Both the grounds were found in disfavour by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority has reversed the same in the appeal filed by the landlord and eviction has been ordered under Section 11(3) and ground for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) was disallowed. Against the said order, the tenant has come up in revision.

7. We heard Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. Sethumadhavan, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the whole the Appellate Authority has taken a perverse view and the order passed by the Rent Contr