PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

1. Strenuous and persuasive submissions of Sri.Saneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner notwithstanding, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity tainting the orders concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority declining eviction on the ground under S. 11(3). As rightly noticed by the rent control court and the appellate authority, the pleaded case was that PW1- the landlord needs the building for occupation by PW2, the son- defacto claimant and that the studies of PW2, the son had come to an end and that he was going about in search of an avocation. As noticed by the authorities below, the father’s evidence was to the effect that the son was doing his first year degree while the son would swear that he never joined for degree course in the college. When bonafides of a claim and need under S. 11(2) is sought to be established by adduction of oral evidence, it is the credibility of the witnesses which matters. The rent control court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses- father and the son and record their testimonies felt that PW2 the defacto claimant was examined in the teet