Ajithkumar, J.

Sri.K.M.Sali Haji was the owner of the petition schedule shop room. He filed R.C.P.No.15 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Hosdurg, seeking eviction of the petitioner who is the tenant thereon under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court dismissed the R.C.P. During pendency of the R.C.P., Sri.Sali Haji died and therefore his legal representatives, respondents 1 to 7 herein came on record. In the appeal preferred by the respondents, R.C.A.No.6 of 2016, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kasaragod, set aside the order in the R.C.P. Eviction was ordered under Section 11(3) of the Act. This Revision has been filed under Section 20 of the Act challenging the said judgment, which is dated

13.10.2017.

2. On 03.01.2018, this Revision was admitted and notice was ordered to the respondents. Further proceedings for evicting the revision petitioner from the petition schedule shop room was stayed for a period of two months. The order was extended from time to time and is still in force.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was sought by Sri.Sali Haji, the landlord, on the ground that he along with his son, Mohammed Shafeeque, wanted to start a business in electrical goods and appliances in the petition schedule shop room. After the death of Sri.Sali Haji, the R.C.P. was amended adding paragraph No.5(a), where it was reiterated that Sri.Mohammed Shafeeque, the 4th respondent herein, remained jobless and he wanted to start the above-said business. The petitioner filed a counter statement and also an additional counter statement where she refuted the claim of the respondents. It was contended that the need urged by the respondents was not bona fide and that several vacant rooms were in their possession in which the 4th respondent can well start a business if at all he wanted to start a business. A plea based on the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was also advanced, but it was submitted before the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was not pursuing the said contention.

5. During trial, PW1, PW2 and RW1 were examined before the Rent Control Court. Exts.A1 to A11, B1 and C1 were admitted in evidence. The Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence on record held that room Nos.III/1366 and III/1367, which are situated next adjoining to the petition schedule shop room were got vacated by the respondents during pendency of the R.C.P. or immediately prior to that and that the respondents did not satisfactorily explain the reasons for not occupying the said rooms for the projected need, and therefore, the need urged by them was not bona fide. The reasons stated by the respondents for non- occupying the said rooms were not accepted by the Rent Control Court as sufficient to avoid invocation of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act also. Resultantly, the claim for eviction was declined.

6. Before the Appellate Authority the contention of the respondents was that both the said rooms were utilised by the respondents for other purposes and that contention was accepted. The Appellate Authority took a definite view that falling of the said rooms vacant was not proved to be before filing of R.C.P.No.15 of 2012 and obtaining of the said rooms by the respondents being a subsequent event, the same should not have been taken into account by the Rent Control Court as a reason to decline the eviction. The Rent Control Court observed that the respondents despite getting vacant possession of such rooms failed to state anything in the R.C.P. and therefore their bona fides became doubtful and the said observation was also found by the Appellate Authority misplaced for the reason that there was no evidence to show that the said rooms got vacated before filing of the R