O R D E R

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The tenant, questioning an order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), had approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the concurrent orders of eviction, the tenant has approached this Court. There was a delay of 202 days in filing the revision, for which condonation was sought. The need projected is for starting a juice shop and bakery by the daughter of the landlord. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found that the need projected is genuine. The tenant also failed to invoke the protection under the second proviso to (3) of the Act.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the Rent Control Petition was filed with mala fides. However, the tenant failed to establish any mala fides on the part of the landlord.

3. In such ci