O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.10 of

2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thiruvalla and the appellant in R.C.A.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Pathanamthitta. The landlords, namely, Shri.P.A.Varghese and his wife Smt.Ponnamma Varghese (1st respondent herein) filed the R.C.P. under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop rooms. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition, in order to seek an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, was that of Shri. P.A.Varghese and his wife Smt. Ponnamma Varghese wanted the rooms for starting a hardware business. He intend to start the business in the two petition schedule shop rooms and also the adjacent two shop rooms which are already in their possession.

2. Before the Rent Control Court, the petitioner-

tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement. He has denied the bona fide of the need projected in the Rent Control Petition. He also contended that the petition is barred by res judicata, other rooms are there in the possession of the landlords and the petitioners are entitled to get the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act.

3. On the side of the landlords, Shri.P.A.Varghese was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 series were marked. The tenant and an independent witness were examined as DW1 and DW2. Exts.B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the tenant.

4. Claim for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was not seen pressed by the landlords. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3) of the Act was bonafide and genuine. Since the landlords are not in possession of any other suitable and convenient building for the proposed purpose, the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section

11(3) of the Act. The tenant as DW1 during cross examination has admitted that vacant rooms are available in the locality, although he added that those rooms are situated away and therefore not convenient for shifting his business. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant was not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, the landlords were found entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 22.01.2018, allowed the R.C.P under Section 11(3) of the Act directing the tenant to put the landlords in vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room, within 60 days from the date of order.

5. Challenging the order of eviction the tenant filed R.C.A.No.10 of 2018, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta. During the pendency of that appeal, Shri. P.A.Varghese died and his legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental respondents 3 and 4 as per order dated 9.3.2021 in I.A.No. 3 of 2021. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 17.9.2021, dismissed R.C.A.No.10 of 2018, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section

11(3) of the Act.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant has filed this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section

20 of the Act.

7. On 3.01.2022, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, the learned Counsel for the respondents, who filed Caveat entered appearance.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, under S