The landlord's bona fide need for possession must be demonstrated, while the burden is on the tenant to show availability of alternative accommodations under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner is the tenant. He filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Thrissur in R.C.P.No.99 of 2020 in favour of the respondents, which stands confirmed by the judgment dated 29.11.2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Thrissur in R.C.A.No.146 of 2016. Eviction was ordered under Section 11 (3) of the Act.

2. This revision was admitted to file on 29.03.2021.

On that day, The order of eviction was stayed as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 for a period of three months. The interim order of stay was extended from time to time and is still in force.

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

4. Eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The respondents-landlords set forth the need that they wanted to start a garment business in the petition schedule premises. The petitioner resisted the claim for eviction by filing an objection. It was contended that the need urged was not bona fide. The petition schedule premises comprises four rooms. The rooms are situated not contiguous. Therefore, it is not feasible and practical to conduct a garment business in the said shop rooms. The respondents are in possession of other buildings, which can be used for the said purpose. They demanded exorbitant rent; the petitioner did not heed. That is the reason for the plea for eviction. The petitioner is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business in readymades and toys being conducted in the petition schedule premises and no other alternative building suitable to shift his business is available in the locality.

5. At trial before the Rent Control Court PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the respondents. RWs.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the petitioner. Exts.C1 and C2 are two commission reports. After considering the said evidence, the Rent Control Court concluded that the need urged by the respondent was bona fide and the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of either the first proviso or second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. An order of eviction under (3) of the Act was accordingly granted by the Rent Control Court. The challenge to that order by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him under section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Appellate Authority was not successful.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the need urged by the respondents cannot be held to be bona fide inasmuch as the evidence let in by PW1 is insufficient to substantiate the plea, and the explanation offered by them for not occupying the vacant rooms in their possession in the same building for the proposed business, is not convincing. The learned counsel further would submit that from the admission of PW1 itself, it is evident that the respondents let out at least two rooms immediately prior to or after filing of the Rent Control Petition, but the respondents did not choose to furnish any special reasons for not occupying such rooms, and that disentitles them from getting eviction on account of the bar contained in the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. As regards the second proviso, the learned counsel would submit that the oral testimony of RW1 together with Ext.B1 prove the first limb and facts evinced from Exts.C1 and C2 would substantiate that there has not been any vacant room or building available in the locality. Thus, the finding of the courts below leading to the order of eviction are strenuously assailed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the landlords, who were employed abroad, have now at home remaining without any job and their prop