ORDER :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent is the landlord. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction, and the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court.

2. The tenanted premises is a portion of the ground floor of a three storeyed building measuring 750 sq.ft. which is being used by the tenant as a showroom for his crockery business. The tenancy arrangement commenced in the year 1997. Earlier, the tenant was using the second floor of the building also as a godown to keep the stock of the products handled by him. However, on a request made by the landlord, the tenant surrendered the second floor of the building and is using an adjacent building as his godown. It was while so, the eviction petition was instituted. The case set out by the landlord in the eviction petition is that he needs the premises for establishing a computer related business in which he is proficient and for establishing a dental clinic for his wife who is a Dentist. One of the contentions raised by the tenant in the proceedings was that the need set out by the landlord is not bonafide, and it is after rejecting the said contention, eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court.

3. It is seen that during the pendency of the appeal, the first floor of the building measuring approximately 1800 sq.ft. held by another tenant of the landlord fell vacant. The tenant preferred an interlocutory application then in the appeal seeking orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain and report the said fact. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The tenant challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority in this regard before this Court in O.P. (RC) No.17 of 2022. This Court dismissed the above original petition holding that it is unnecessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose sought for, as there is no dispute as regards the said fact. It was, however, observed by this Court in the judgment that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 SCC 103 and Sheshambal v. Chelur Corpn. Chelur Building, (2010) 3 SCC 470, the Appellate Authority is expected to examine whether the fact pointed out by the tenant has any impact on the relief claimed by the landlord. It was also observed by this Court in the judgment that such a contention cannot be simply brushed aside as a subsequent event. Thereupon, the appeal was taken up and disposed of by the Appellate Authority, affirming the decision of the Rent Control Court. As noted, it is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority that the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that it was for the purpose of enabling the landlord to use the second floor of the building for establishing the computer related business as also dental clinic for his wife, he surrendered the said portion of the building to the landlord on his request and it is an admitted fact that on getting the possession of the second floor of the building, instead of occupying the same for the said purposes, the landlord leased out the same to others. According to the learned counsel, on that sole ground, the authorities below ought to have held that there is no bonafidesat all for the need pleaded in the eviction petition by the landlord. It was also contended by the learned counsel that in the light of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act which precludes the Rent Control Court from granting an order of eviction unless it is satisfied that it is just and proper to do so for special reasons, if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the issue whether the fact that the first floor of the building which fell vacant during the pen