ORDER

C.S.DIAS, J.

The revision petitioner was the appellant in RCA No.192/2017 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (in short 'Appellate Authority'), Vatakara. The respondent in this revision petition was the respondent in the above appeal.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, in RCP No.34/2016. The parties are for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the Rent Control Petition (RCP) as 'petitioner' and 'respondent'.

3. The petitioner had filed the RCP against the respondent, inter alia, pleading as follows: The petition schedule shop rooms (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'shop rooms') were let out on rent as per rental agreements executed by the father of the petitioner. After death of the father, the mother of the petitioner was administering the estate of the deceased. While so, the brother of the respondent had approached the petitioner's mother and made her to execute a rent bonds in respect of the shop rooms. Despite execution of the rent bonds, the respondent continued in possession of the shop rooms. He paid rent up to the month of January, 2016. The petitioner owns six private buses. He desires to expand his business by starting a travel agency in the shop rooms. Therefore, he bona fide needs the shop rooms for his own occupation. Although he owns two buildings in the same locality, the shop rooms in the buildings are in the occupation of tenants. The petitioner has no other vacant shop rooms in his possession. Although he sent a notice demanding vacant possession of the shop rooms, the brother of the respondent denied any relationship with the petitioner. The respondent also contended that he had agreed to purchase the shop rooms from the petitioner's father, and that he paid an advance sale consideration of Rs 7,50,000/-. The petitioner denied the said agreement. The respondent had also filed OS No.3/2016 seeking a decree for specific performance. The tenant is not depending on the income derived from the shop rooms. There are plenty of vacant shop rooms available in the locality which are sufficient for the respondent to conduct his business. Hence the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

4. The RCP was resisted by the respondent, who filed a counter statement, inter alia, pleading as follows: The tenancy in respect of the shop rooms by virtue of rental deeds is admitted. On the date the rent bonds were executed, an agreement for sale was also executed on 26.3.2009 between the respondent and the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner agreed to sell the shop rooms to the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs 15,00,000/-. An advance amount of Rs 7,50,000/- was paid to the deceased. Similarly, the deceased also received Rs 60,000/- as security for the shop rooms, from the respondent. As per the agreement, the respondent is entitled to continue in the shop rooms for a period of seven years and, thereafter, pay the balance sale consideration. The seven years period would expire on 26.3.2016. The respondent is conducting a fancy and footwear business in the shop rooms. He is depending on the income from the business, for his livelihood. There are no vacant shop rooms in the locality. The bona fide need projected by the petitioner is only a ruse for eviction. The petitioner is an affluent businessman conducting several business in the locality. There is no necessity for him to evict the respondent from the shop rooms. Therefore, the RCP may be dismissed.

5. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 were marked through him. The respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts B1 and B2 were marked through him.

6. The Rent Control Court after evaluating the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the RCP by ordering eviction of the respond