O R D E R

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The tenant of a building wherein she is conducting a tailoring shop is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965. It is mainly pointed out that the Appellate Authority has taken a perverse view in the absence of any positive evidence in favour of the Landlady.

2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are the following:

The first respondent herein filed an eviction petition on the plea that the building is required for the purpose of the second petitioner therein who is her son. He has completed his I.T.I Electronics and Computer course in Hardware and Networking and is remaining unemployed. He wants to start a computer business in the petition schedule room and he has experience as service engineer. He is solely dependent on the first petitioner therein. It is also pleaded that the landlords have no other building in their possession suitable for the said business. This was objected to by the petitioner/tenant on various pleas.

3. The Rent Control Court considered the matter at length and finally, rejected the eviction petition. In fact, before the Rent