ORDER :

Somarajan, J.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act), one of the landlords came up with this revision.

2. The petition was originally filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. But the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act was not pressed into service and the petition was proceeded under Section 11(3) of the Act. The need advanced is for own occupation of the landlord/petitioner, who is admittedly a co-owner of the property. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate-Authority rejected the claim mainly on the reason that the evidence adduced through the Power of Attorney holder, father-in-law of the petitioner, cannot be substituted in the place of direct evidence from the landlord/petitioner and that the Power of Attorney holder is not competent to give evidence regarding the need of the landlord.

3. The need advanced is for the own occupation of one of the co-owners, the petitioner herein. In the petition, there is no pleading to the effect that the other co-owners have consented or agreed for the