ORDER

K.HARILAL, J.

The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode under Sec.11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short) in RCP No.126/2016 and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in RCA No.31/2018. The parties are referred to as their status in the Rent Control Petition (RCP for short).

2. The petitioner/landlord filed the aforesaid RCP, seeking an order of eviction under Sec.11 (3) of the Act, on bona fide need, and according to him, his son who completed degree course intended to start a fast food and cool bar business in the petition schedule shop room. So, he bona fide needs the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation. His son is depending on him for the tenanted premises. Neither the petitioner nor his son has any other suitable room for conducting the aforesaid fast food and cool bar business. But, several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the respondent's business from the tenanted premises. So also, he is not depending upon the income derived from the business in the tenanted premises and at present, he is not conducting any kind of business of his own in the tenanted premises.

3. The respondent resisted the claim for eviction contending that the need projected is not bona fide and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to the respondent, his wife started a tailoring unit in the building by employing an employee, by name, Vijayan and income from the said tailoring unit and the tuition class conducted by his wife in the tenanted premises is the sole source of income for his livelihood. No other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift his business from the tenanted premises.

4. On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that the need projected is bona fide, the claim for eviction is not hit by the first proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings are challenged in this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. This revision petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the sequence of events from the very beginning of the tenancy would prove that the need projected is not bona fide and it is a ruse for eviction only. So the finding that the need is bona fide is a perverse one warranting interference under Revisional Jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew our attention to the series of litigations between the petitioner and the respondent under the Act, prior to the present RCP and submits that when the landlord failed to obtain an order of eviction under Secs 11(2) (b), 11 (4) (v), Sec.5 and 11(4) (i), one by one, he has resorted to Sec.11 (3) also as an experimental exercise in the name of his son and there is no bona fides in the need projected in the rent control petition.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the concurrent findings of the courts below. According to the learned counsel, the earlier litigations under the Act, against the respondent, will not create any kind of legal bar against institution of a subsequent suit under Sec.11 (3) of the Act and the present rent control petition, RCP No.126/2016, is the first rent control petition on the ground of bona fide need. So, earlier rent control petitions under other grounds are insignificant and irrelevant.

8. In view of the arguments at the bar, the sole point to be considered in this revision petition is whether there is any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below that the need projected is bona fide.

9. At the outset, we must have rem