The burden of proof to establish the protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, rests strictly with the tenant, requiring satisfactory evidence of inability to find suitable alternate accommodation in the locality.

JUDGMENT PREETA A.K., J.

This Rent Control Revision arises from a common judgment in R.C.P.Nos.25 and 26 of 2016 of the Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in R.C.P.No.26 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein.

2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking vacant possession of the shop room bearing door no.11/120 of Irinjalakuda municipality under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 alleging arrears of rent from 01/11/2015 and also alleging bona fide requirement of the petition schedule building for commencing cement, paint and hardware business for the husband of the respondent. The revision petitioner resisted the Rent Control Petition on the ground that he is running a business there; that the husband of the respondent is a retired government servant with pension and that there is no vacant room available in the locality to conduct his business and that the need projected by the respondent is not bona fide and that he is entitled to the protection of 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act as he is depending on the income from the tenanted premises and that there is no vacant building available in the locality to shift his business. Evidence was let in by both sides. The Rent Controller on a meticulous examination of the evidence on record held that the respondent had proved bona fide need for conducting business in the petition schedule building and directed the petitioner herein to put the respondent in possession of the petition schedule building on expiry of one month from the date of the common order in Rent Control Petitions.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal as R.C.A.No.36/2022. The order of the Rent Control Court was challenged primarily on the ground that the respondent had not examined Suneesh who was a tenant of the petition schedule building, the third room, which according to the respondent was already in her possession. The appellate court reappraised the evidence and sustained the order passed by the Rent Control court. It is against the concurrent finding by the trial court and the first appellate court that this Revision is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent / Caveator.

5. The revision petitioner has assailed the findings on Section 11(2)(b) on the ground that he had been paying rent to the respondent and on refusal to accept the same, he had sent the rental amount through money-order which the respondent had refused to accept. On going through the concurrent findings, it is seen that the trial court has relied on Ext.A7 rent agreement, which provided for a fixed rate of enhancement of rent after every 11 months and the admission of RW1 that the rent at the admitted rate of enhancement was not paid, to enter into a finding that the respondent has willfully defaulted rent to the landlord. As the said finding is based on the evidence on record, we find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the trial court.

6. As regards the eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Act, the contention of the revision petitioner is that the respondent does not have bona fide requirement of the shop rooms and that the non examination of one Suneesh who was also a tenant occupying a shop room in the ground floor of the building, and who according to the respondent had surrendered possession of the room taking into consideration the bona fide requirement of the respondent/landlord, is fatal. It is seen from th