A tenant's entitlement to the benefits under the first proviso to Section 11(3) relies on demonstrating the landlord's possession of suitable vacant rooms, and the burden of proof shifts accordingly.

O R D E R

C.S.Sudha, J.

This R.C.R. under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed against the judgment dated 26/02/2019 in R.C.A.No.4/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Pathanamthitta, which appeal is against the order dated 26/11/2015 in R.C.P.No.20/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the appeal and the petitioner-landlord in the R.C.P. The respondent herein, is the appellant in the appeal and the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

2. R.C.P.No.20/2014 was filed by the petitioner, namely, NSS Karayogam, Manipuzha, represented by its president seeking eviction under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(17) of the Act. The RCC allowed eviction under all the aforesaid sections. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the order of the RCC was reversed and the R.C.P. was dismissed. In the present revision, the ground under (2)(b) is not pressed. The finding of the RCAA that the petitioner-landlord has not produced its bye-laws and thus the claim that it is a public institution coming within the ambit of (17) of the Act, has not been seriously challenged. Hence we confine ourselves to the question as to whether the finding of the RCAA that the benefit of the first proviso to (3) goes to the tenant, suffers from any infirmity.

3. In the R.C.P., the allegation is that the landlord requires the premises for the purpose of starting a Human Resource Centre and a Human Resource Cell in the light of Ext.A5 circular. It is also alleged that the petition schedule room is the most suitable room for the proposed need and that they have no other rooms in their possession. They also alleged that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3).

4. The respondent-tenant filed counter denying the need alleged and contended that it is a mere ruse for eviction. The intention of the landlord is to evict him and let it out for higher rent and advance. The landlord has other rooms in his possession, which are suitable for the proposed need. He also contented that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3).

5. Before the RCC, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the petitioner-landlord. DW1 was examined on behalf of the respondent. No documentary evidence was produced by the tenant. The report and plan of the advocate commissioner have been marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a) respectively. The RCC, on an appreciation of the oral and the documentary evidence, and after hearing both sides, allowed the R.C.P. and ordered eviction under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(17) of the Act. In R.C.A.No.4/2016 filed by the tenant, the order of the RCC has been reversed and the appeal allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioner-landlord has come up in revision.

6. Heard Sri.K.B.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the findings of the RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

8. Section 20 of the Act allows the aggrieved party to challenge the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding of an Appellate Authority. The power of revision is limited to make a scrutiny of records to satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in . The revisional court cannot convert itself into an evidence collecting or fact finding Court. The scope of interference by the revisional court is restricted to cases where the RCC or RCAA have relied on irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of evidence, or applied wrong principles of law. Where there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the orders of the RCC and the RCAA, there is no justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under of the A