The court clarified that the bona fide need must be reasonable and substantiated; the burden lies with the tenant to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the landlord.

ORDER

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act are orders of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority on the ground under Section 11 (3) of the Act 2 of 1965. The case of the respondent landlady to begin with was that the petition schedule building, which is the subject matter of this case and the buildings which are subject matter of three other cases, which were jointly tried, are required so that her husband who is a Doctor (PW1) and her son who is also a Doctor (PW2), can together conduct a hospital in those buildings. During the pendency of the proceedings, PW1- landlady's husband passed away. The rent control court and the appellate authority would hold that the demise of PW1 was not a subsequent event capable of frustrating the projected need of the landlady. The above view of the rent control court and the R.C.R. 22/2009 2 appellate authority was practically approved by this court in C.R.P. No.1957/2001 and the connected cases. During the pendency of those CRPs, affidavits were filed by the various tenants to the effect that the landlady's son is permanently employed in Bulgaria for the last more than seven years and that he was very comfortably placed there. This court noticed some merit prima facie in the contention of the tenants that if, as a matter of fact, the landlady's son (PW2) secured permanent employment in Burgaria that may have some bearing upon the bona fides of the claim. Accordingly, all the cases were remanded to the rent control court for considering whether the landlord's need of accommodating her son in the buildings for the purpose of conducting the hospital survives. After remand, the landlady, mounted the box and testified as PW3 that PW2 her only son will come back to join her and start hospital in the petition schedule building once she succeeds in getting back possession of the building. She would state, in contrast to the allegation of the tenant, that her son was working temporarily at the moment in Saudi Arabia. Though the landlady (PW3) was cross examined, it was not agreed by her that the employment R.C.R. 22/2009 3 which PW2 had acquired in Saudi Arabia is a permanent one. At any rate, no documentary materials are produced on the side of the tenant to show that PW2 has secured permanent employment in any foreign country. Evidence of PW3 landlady that her son will come back to his home village on getting possession of the building inspired the rent control court as well as the appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court of facts.

2. Before us Sri.B.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Variety Emporium v. V.R.M.Mohd. Ibrahim Naina (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 207). The learned counsel would submit that the facts situation, which obtained in that case, is comparable to the situation in the present case. According to the learned counsel, the circumstances that the landlady has already secured possession of three out of the four rooms which were subject of CRP No.1957/2001 & connected cases and that the landlady's son has not so far come back to start the hospital in the three rooms possession of which was already obtained, are subsequent events which would demolish the bona fides of the R.C.R. 22/2009 4 need projected by the landlady. He would also submit that in order to accomplish the projected need, it is not necessary that the petition schedule room in which the petitioner is conducting a tea shop is also obtained. That tea shop can cater to the patients, staff and the visitors in the hospital and will not be a hindrance to the conduct of hospital by PW2.

3. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.variety's Emporium case (supra). We are unable to agree that the facts therein are comparable to the present case. The need projected by the landlad