O R D E R

K.T.Sankaran, J.

The landlord is the revision petitioner. He challenges the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority under the first and second provisos to Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against him and the consequent dismissal of the Rent Control Petition under (3) of the Act.

2. R.C.P. No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode was filed by the landlord against the respondent/tenant under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application on the grounds under (2)(b), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Act. The claim for eviction under Section 11 (3) was allowed by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court held that the bona fide need put forward by the landlord is genuine, that the landlord does not have any other suitable building vacant in his possession so as to attract the first proviso to (3) of the Act and that the tenant failed to prove the ingredients of the second proviso to (3) of the Act.

3. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.47 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court that the need put forward by the landlord is genuine. However, the findings of the Rent Control Court under the first and second provisos to Section 11 (3) of the Act were reversed by the Appellate Authority. Thus the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court under (3) of the Act and dismissed the Rent Control Petition under (3) of the Act. Though the landlord filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection before the Appellate Authority challenging those grounds which were rejected by the Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Memorandum of Cross Objection.

4. Shabeer, the son of the landlord, is a Doctor by profession.

Shabeer passed DM in Neurology. The need put forward by the landlord is that Shabeer wants the petition schedule building to start a neurology clinic with laboratory, resting room and other facilities. Shabeer wants to annex the two rooms in the possession of the tenant in the present case along with one room in the possession of the tenant in R.C.P.No.187 of 2004 as well as another room lying vacant but which was in the possession of Shabeer. The landlord filed R.C.P.No.187 of 2004 against the other tenant who was in occupation of a room in the upstair portion. Originally, one Rent Control Petition was filed as R.C.P.No.187 of 2004 against Dinesh, the respondent herein, as well as another tenant Jose Thomas (who was in possession of the room in the upstair portion). That Rent Control Petition had a chequered career and finally it was held that the landlord may amend the Rent Control Petition suitably. Accordingly, R.C.P.No.187 of 2004 was retained as against Jose Thomas and R.C.P.No.63 of 2009 was filed against Dinesh, the tenant in the present case. The Rent Control Court considered both the Rent Control Petitions together and a common order was passed. The appeals therefrom were also considered by the Appellate Authority as per a common judgment.

5. The respondent/tenant denied the bona fide need put forward by the landlord. However, he did not dispute the fact that Shabeer is a qualified Doctor. The tenant also did not dispute the fact that Shabeer needs a building if he wants to conduct a clinic. The only contention put forward by the tenant was that if Shabeer really wanted to start a clinic, he could do so utilising the other vacant rooms in the possession of the landlord.

6. As stated above, both the authorities below found that the landlord has proved the bona fide need put forward by him that Shabeer intends to start a clinic in the petition schedule building as well as the other rooms situated nearby in the same main building. Thus the only remaining dispute was with re