O R D E R

A.Muhamed Mustaque.J The landlady has preferred this rent control revision, challenging the orders in R.C.P. No. 77 of 2016 dated 30.07.2019 and R.C.A.No.142 of 2019 dated 29.10.2022 of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

2. The brief set of facts are as follows:-

The revision petitioner/landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 11(2)(a)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The need projected is on behalf of her son Sreejith. It is averred that her son wants to run a DTP centre. The tenant entered appearance and opposed the prayers of the landlady. One of the contentions raised by the tenant was that the landlady and her son own several buildings under their direct possession and that the petition was filed only to harass the tenant.

3. The landlady was examined as PW1 and the tenant was examined as RW1.

4. A Commission was appointed in this matter and the Commissioner filed a report. Upon inspection, the Commissioner found that a room marked as “G” in Ext.C2 Plan was locked,. It was also reported that the room was untidy and the rolling shutter of the room was covered in dirt and rust. The Rent Control Court noted that the landlady had failed to explain a special reason for non-occupation, and, therefore, the Rent Control Petition filed under Section 11(3) is bound to fail. It is apparent that the tenant cleared the arrears of rent and there was no order under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Anyway, the question of eviction for non-payment of the arrears under Section 11(2)(b) does not arise in this case as no such argument was raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the landlady.

5. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Control Court.

6. We have heard Sri. Ramesh Babu.T, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlady.

7. Though notice has been issued to the respondent/tenant, none appeared on behalf of him.

8. The question is whether the landlady made out a case for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, based on the bonafide need of her son.

9. There is no adverse finding regarding the bonafide need set forth by the landlady. It has come out that the landlady's son has completed B.Com Degree and Computer Course.

10. There is absolutely no evidence before the court to discredit the landlady's claim under Section 11(3) of the Act, except for the fact that she has another room marked as “G” in Ext.C2 Commission Plan, filed along with Ext.C1 report.

11. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority relied on Ext.C1 Commission Report. The Rent Control Court noted that there are seven rooms in the building and the landlady failed to produce the lease deed in respect of the room marked as “G” in Ext.C2 Commission Plan. The landlady has a case that this was let out to Bengali workers in the year 2015 and it is not a vacant room. It is due to lack of proof that the building was let out to the Bengali workers, the Rent Control Court rejected the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act. This was affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 12. The first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act states that the Rent Control Court shall not order eviction on the ground of bonafide need, if the landlord has another building of his own possession in the same city, town or village etc, unless the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for any special reason, the landlord can not occupy such a building. The burden is on the tenant to establish that the landlord is in possession of another building. Once the building is pointed out, the onus shifts to the landlord to provide reasons for non-occupation of that building. We have noted paragraph No.4 of the counter filed by the tenant/respondent before the Rent Control Court. There is absolutely no averment in the counter stating that the landlady is in possession of any vacant buildings. On the other hand, the tenant contended that the landlady and he