O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The landlord filed R.C.Rev.No.248 of 2019. The tenant filed R.C.Rev.No.86 of 2022. Both arose on the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-V), Kozhikode in R.C.A.No.207 of 2016. The respondent has filed a Cross Objection in that appeal. Since the appeal and the Cross Objection were dismissed as per the judgment dated 4.12.2018, both of them have filed these Rent Control Revisions, invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlord and the tenant for convenience.

3. The landlord filed R.C.P.No.81 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-II), Kozhikode, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that he wants to start a business in imported and modular furniture in the petition schedule premises. The tenant resisted the petition by filing a counter. The objections were that the rent control premises is a shed and not suitable for accommodating a showroom of modular and imported furniture. The premises is situated in an industrial area and no commercial activity is possible there. The landlord has no experience; moreover, he is an aged man, without any ability or financial capacity to start such a business. The landlord agreed to sell the said property to the tenant in 2008, which belies the bona fides of the landlord. The tenant also claimed benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

4. The Rent Control Court recorded oral testimony of PW1 and RW1. Exts.A1 to A2(3), C1 and C2 were received in evidence. After considering the said evidence, the Rent Control Court found the need projected by the landlord as bona fide. But on holding that the tenant was entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act dismissed the rent control petition. The landlord preferred an appeal under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Appellate Authority and the tenant preferred a Cross Objection challenging the finding regarding the need. As per the judgment dated 04.12.2018 the Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeal and the Cross Objection.

5. On 17.06.2019, R.C.Rev.No.248 of 2019 was admitted directing notice to the respondent-tenant. The tenant entered appearance and filed R.C.Rev.No.86 of 2022.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the landlord and the learned counsel appearing for the tenant.

7. The landlord-tenant relationship is admitted. The tenant took up a contention that in 2008, he entered into an agreement with the landlord for the sale of the petition schedule premises and the appurtenant land and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was received towards advance sale consideration. The tenant stresses it more to attack the bona fides of the landlord than to deny his title to the property. PW1 deposed admitting such an agreement, but he explained that the advance amount he received was repaid and the agreement came to an end. That version has not been controverted. In the said facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the agreement, which came into being many years before, and left it without any further action for its performance, can have any bearing either on the title of the landlord to the petition schedule premises or bona fides of the need he has urged.

8. PW1 deposed in court regarding his plan to start a furniture business. He proposes to import furniture, including modular ones from abroad, and to set up a showroom he requires the petition schedule premises. He also stated that he proposes to manufacture furniture by engaging employees. His idea is to invest Rs.30 lakhs for the purpose. He would assert that his two sons-in-law would help him and there would not be any difficulty in raising the fund. PW1 is not a person having no connection with business. It is admitted that earlier he had business in grocer