O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J This revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 was filed by respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.65 of 2014 on the file of Rent Control Court, Talipparamba. The respondent landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The Rent Control Court ordered evictions under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. Petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an appeal under section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-III), Thalassery dismissed the appeal.

Feeling aggrieved thereof, this revision petition has been filed. 2. On 24.01.2022, this Court admitted the revision petition and ordered notice to the respondents. Respondents entered appearance through his learned counsel. Execution of the order of eviction was stayed as per order dated 24.01.2022 for a period of one month.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Grounds for eviction survive for consideration are bonafide need of the petition schedule shop room for own occupation and cessation of occupation of the petition schedule shop room by the petitioner continuously for more than six months without reasonable cause.

5. Husband of the respondent-landlady has been working abroad. He has decided to come back and start a business. He, being a dependent on the respondent in terms of getting a premises for his starting a business, eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule shop room was necessitated. The respondent is not in possession of any other suitable building. The further allegation is that the petitioner has not been occupying the petition schedule shop room for more than a year next before filing the petition. There is no sufficient reason for not occupying the room. In fact, the petitioner has another business and hence it is not required for him. Those were the broad reasons stated in support of the plea for eviction.

6. The petitioner resisted the eviction petition by filing a counter statement. Contentions are the following:

Respondent was laid up due to illness for a period of one week. Making use of that opportunity, the respondent filed the petition and took out a Commission. It was absolutely incorrect that he ceased to occupy the building for more period. Husband of the respondent is abroad. It was falsely stated that he came back and therefore he required the petition schedule shop room to start a stationery business. He, in fact, does not have any intention to start a business. Such a reason is set forth as a pretext for eviction only. The petitioner is depending for his livelihood solely on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule shop room. No other suitable building is available in the locality. In view of those reasons, the respondent is not entitled to claim eviction of the petitioner.

7. The Rent Control Court examined PWs 1 to 3 and RW1 and received Exts. A1, B1 to B5 and C1 in evidence. After hearing both sides, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act, but rejected the claim under Section 11(4)(iii). The Appellate Authority re-appreciated the evidence in detail. Evidence available on record and the relevant case law were considered in the light of the pleadings and held by the Appellate Authority that there was no reason to interfere with the findings entered into by the Rent Control Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the findings regarding bonafides of the respondent mainly on the ground that true facts were not placed before the Court. It was averred in the petition that husband(PW2) of the respondent deserted his job abroad and came back, and that was the immediate requirement of his starting a business. It has, however, come out in evidence that he was still working abroad.

9. PW2 appeared before Court and deposed regarding his decision