O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent-landlady filed R.C.P.No.70 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-II), Kozhikode, seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenants under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Petition was allowed as per order dated 12.04.2017. The appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act as R.C.A.No.121 of 2017 was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kozhikode as per judgment dated 13.12.2018. Feeling aggrieved thereof, this Revision Petition under Section 20 of the Act was filed.

2. The respondent sought eviction projecting the need that she wanted to start a ladies tailoring and garment shop in the petition schedule room. The petition for eviction was resisted by the petitioners by contending that the need urged was not bonafide; the main reason being the respondent before and after initiating the eviction petition sent communications to the 1st petitioner intimating her consent to continue tenancy on the condition of payment of enhanced rent. It was also contended that several other vacant rooms are available in the possession of the respondent, where she can conveniently start such a business. That apart, it was alleged that the respondent does not want to start such a business, since her husband is a successful business-man and her children are professionals and well employed.

3. The Rent Control Court during trial examined PW1 and RW1 and received in evidence Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4. After considering the said evidence along with other materials on record, the Rent Control Court held that the need projected by the respondent was bona fide and resultantly ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority re-appraised the evidence in detail. Every contention raised by the appellants was deliberated upon in detail in the light of the evidence available on record. The Appellate Authority did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Rent Control Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

4. The Revision Petition was admitted on 18.01.2021.

The order of eviction was stayed initially for a period of three months. The order was extended from time to time.

5. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the need urged by the respondent, in any view, cannot be said bona fide. But the courts below on an erroneous understanding of the evidence entered into a finding in favour of the respondent. It is wrong. PW1, the landlady, gave evidence to prove the need. It is her version that she is experienced in tailoring and earlier she had been running a tailoring unit at her house. She claimed that by employing three staff, she conducted a tailoring unit for about two years, and for want of necessary convenience and facilities, she had to stop that venture. Now she wants to commence a ladies tailoring unit along with a garment shop in the petition schedule room.

7. The main reason for assailing the bona fides of PW1 is that her husband is a busy businessman and two among her three children are Doctors and the third is an Engineer. In such circumstances, it was not only unlikely, but unable for PW1 to start an independent business of her own. When the said facts were put to PW1, she explained that she wants independent income and she does not want to depend on her husband all throughout. When the respondent having a building of her own wants to start an independent business and it is proved that she is sufficiently experienced and capable to conduct the proposed business, it is not for the tenants or the court to decide whether her intention is reasonable or logical. The court can only decide whether she honestly and sincerely put forward such a need. In the cross- examination of PW1, nothing has been brought out in order to doubt her