A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The revision petitioner – tenant challenges the concurrent order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , (for short “Act”). The landlady is a widow with two children, a son and a daughter. The landlady’s son is conducting a stationery business in a room in her possession, which is the sole source of income for the family. The son is unmarried. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant in order to start a Ladies Fancy Store-cum- Ladies Tailoring Centre. According to her, the income generated from her son’s business is insufficient to meet the family’s expenses.

2. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the evidence and concluded that the landlady's need was genuine. The tenant failed to establish any mala fide intent or motives on the part of the landlady in seeking eviction. Further, the tenant did not prove the necessary conditions for protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner –

tenant vehemently argued before this Court, and would submit that subsequent to the filing of the rent