O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The respondents-tenants in R.C.P.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Mananthavady, are the petitioners. The respondent-landlady has filed the rent control petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was allowed. The appeal filed by the petitioners herein as R.C.A.No.10 of 2019 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge-I), Kalpetta. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The rent control petition was filed by the respondent-landlady claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide need. The need urged was that her son, who is a dependent of the landlady, wanted to start a readymade shop in the petition schedule shop room. It was also contended that she has no other building, which can suitably be used for the purpose. That claim was resisted by the petitioners by contending that the landlady and her son are financially well of, her son has no intention to start such a business, he has no expertize, the landlady is in possession of so many other buildings in her possession and that the petitioners are entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section

11(3) of the Act.

3. Evidence in the case consists of oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 to 4, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B7. The Rent Control Court, after deliberating upon the said evidence and on hearing both sides, found that the need urged by the respondent-landlady was bonafide and that the petitioners are liable to be evicted. Challenge made by the petitioners to the order of eviction by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority was not successful. That occasioned in filing this revision.

4. On 25.10.2021, this revision petition was admitted to file, ordering notice to the respondent. Interim stay of execution of the order of eviction was granted for a period of two months. It was extended from time to time.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised contentions that the need urged by the landlady lacks bonafides and also that the petitioners are entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. However, the learned counsel stressed more on the contentions that the landlady got evicted tenants in two rooms recently and sold other two rooms after commencement of the rent control petition as evidenced by Exts.B6 and B7 which would attract the provisions under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is contended that having such four rooms available vacant with the landlady, she filed the rent control petition without disclosing those facts and offering any plausible explanation for not using the said rooms for the projected purpose, she would be disentitled to claim ejectment of the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the landlady was not obliged to state about other buildings belonging to her in the petition, as it was the burden of the tenants to prove availability of such rooms in the possession of the landlady. However, as a matter of fact the allegation of the petitioners that two rooms got vacated have been available with the landlady, is absolutely incorrect. Those rooms were obtained for the purpose of starting a travel agency business by the husband of the landlady, which already has been started. Those rooms are on the upstairs of the building, having no direct access to the road. Therefore, the said rooms are not at all suitable for conducting a readymade shop. As regards the sale by virtue of Exts.B6 and B7, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the sale deed was executed in 2018, agreement to sell the said rooms was entered into four years before by accepting advan