O R D E R

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

The tenant is in revision. He was sought to be evicted on the ground of cessation of occupation as well as bona fide need for own occupation. Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel who has lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent/landlord, submitted that this court need be seriously concerned in this revision only with the correctness of the order of eviction passed under sub section (3) of Section 11 concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. We are, therefore, examining this case only in the context of ground under sub section (3) of Section 11.

2. The parties will be referred to as the 'landlord' and the tenant'. The need projected by the landlord was that he has retired from the service of Life Insurance Corporation and that he needs to conduct business in Footwear & Suitcases in the petition schedule building, which is situated in a commercially RCR.No.23/2010 2 important area of the Kuthuparamba town. Bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the landlord is having vacant possession of another commercial building at Pookode purchased by the landlord himself in the name of his wife and therefore, the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The tenant also claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and the evidence at trial consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Ext.X1, the third party's affidavit, Ext.C1 commission report and the oral evidence of the parties as PW1 and RW1 respectively. The Rent Control Court was inspired by the evidence of PW1 and on appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord was bona fide. As regards the building at Pookode, it was held that the building does not belong to the landlord and hence the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 cannot have any application. That court also accepted the explanation of the landlord that Pookode is an interior area and the commercial potentialities of the building at Pookode are not so much as that of the petition schedule RCR.No.23/2010 3 building. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenant had not succeeded in establishing that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the court ordered eviction on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11.

3. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusion of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal to the extent it pertains to the ground under sub section 3 of Section 11.

4. In this revision under Section 20, the tenant has raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri. K.P.Hareendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. Sri.Hareendran submitted that though the availability of the building at Pookode may not attract the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, since the said building stands in the name of the landlord's wife, the circumstance that the landlord did not occupy that building for accomplishing the projected need is fatal to the bona fides of the claim. According to Sri.Hareendran, Pookode is commercially as important as RCR.No.23/2010 4 Kuthuparamba town itself. The learned counsel drew our attention to the evidence of PW1 and RW1 especially to the extent the same pertains to the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned counsel drew our attention also to Ext.C1 report and submitted that the findings that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso of sub section (3) of Section 11 and that the tenant has not established either of the ingredients of that proviso, are erroneous being contrary to the evidence on record. As a last request, th