Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, C.J.

Heard Mr.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, Caveator.

2. A very well-reasoned order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority has been assailed in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the said decision on the ground that both the courts below have misconstrued the evidence with regard to the need of the tenant. The learned counsel has referred to the proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to show that in the event a tenant is able to establish that the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his business carried on such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry out such business, an order of eviction cannot be passed.

3. We have carefully read the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Both the courts, on examination of all the documentary evidence, have arrived at a definite finding that the suit property is no