Judgment :- 1. The 'tenant' (not one belonging to the socially weak section, but a fortunately high placed officer of the Life Insurance Corporation) is the Revision Petitioner. All the authorities below repelled his contentions when he questioned the bona fide need of own occupation put forward by the landlord as a ground of eviction. Whether the decision of the three authorities below should be interfered with in the restricted jurisdiction of a revision under S.115 C P.C., is the question which arises for consideration. 2. A few skeletal facts may be recapitulated to appreciate the contentions of the Revision Petitioner. 3. The building situate in the city of Calicut is owned by Smt. Swarnalatha. Her husband is Rajagopalan, who had been gainfully employed from 1965 onwards in Nigeria as a Senior Agriculturist, in a project financed by the World Bank. Rajagopalan's wife belongs to Tellicherry. She was born in Malacca. Her parents are now in Singapore. 4. The couple did not occupy the building immediately, as they were away in Nigeria. It had been given on rent to various persons. Lastly, on 1-5-1975, it was given to the Revision Petitioner. 5. The project in Nigeria was expected to be completed in 1979. Anticipating the event and taking into consideration the necessity to return home, Rajagopalan wrote a letter in November 1978, to the tenant seeking the surrender of the building. The tenant replied it on the 13th of March, 1979. Therein, the tenant expressed his regret for the delay in sending the reply; and expressed the hope that Rajagopalan and his family were in good health. In reply to the demand for the building, he stated: "I am trying to get a house, but, you know it is very difficult to get a house in Calicut now a days. Anyhow as soon as I get a house I will let you know the exact month, I can hand over your house to Sri Unniettan or Sri Devadas." (Devadas is the younger brother of Rajagopalan and Unniettan is the father-in-law of Devadas.) The promise to surrender the building was, however, honoured only in its breach. Understandably enough, this caused strain in the relationship between the parties. 6. A lawyer's notice Ext. A3 dated 29-1-1980 was sent on behalf of the landlord. The claim of bonafide requirement of the house was specifically referred to therein. That was replied to by Ext. Understandably enough, this caused strain in the relationship between the parties. 6. A lawyer's notice Ext. A3 dated 29-1-1980 was sent on behalf of the landlord. The claim of bonafide requirement of the house was specifically referred to therein. That was replied to by Ext. P4 letter from the lawyer of the tenant. The material statements relevant to this point therein are contained in Para.7 to 10. They are extracted below: 7. The further allegation in your notice that the owner of the building Mr. K. Rajagopal wants to come down and settle in this house is not true and correct. 8. The allegation that his contract of employment is over and he wants to occupy the house in the occupation of my client cannot he true under the circumstances. 9. The bonafide requirement stated in your notice is mala fide. 10. My client is not now in a position to vacate the building, as there is no house available in the locality and this present house is highly desirous to my client to carry on his business and hence, he is not in a position to vacate the building." (emphasis supplied) It is fairly evident that the denial of the claim of the landlord, by the tenant, was without any specific or clear idea of the factual details. There was no specific denial about the termination of the contract of employment in Nigeria or about Rajagopalan's intention to return to Kerala and occupy the house. The emphasis was mostly on the inability of the tenant in getting at an alternate accommodation. It is difficult to understand the statement in Para.10 reading: "this present house is highly desirous to my client to carry on his business When the project in Nigeria came to a close with only its evaluation remaining to be done, Rajagopalan was, under Ext. Al, given an extension of his contract, but restricted to one year from 6th of June, 1982. Thus on 1-6-1983 Rajagopalans were to return from Nigeria. 7. It was reasonably anticipating such an eventuality and nursing a desire to settle down in the Calicut City with his family, that steps were taken for filing the rent control petition. 8. The counter-statement of the tenant before the Rent Controller, covered many contentions, disclosing an attitude of fighting the litigation by means, mostly foul than fair. It is unnecessary to refer to all those contentions. 8. The counter-statement of the tenant before the Rent Controller, covered many contentions, disclosing an attitude of fighting the litigation by means, mostly foul than fair. It is unnecessary to refer to all those contentions. On the question of bona fides. it was only suggested that landlord wanted 'to tease and harass the tenant' and that Mr. Rajagoplan had been convinced about the difficulty of the tenant to move out of the house. It was stated: "Mr. Rajagopalan had also informed the respondent it is unlikely for him to come to Calicut to settle in the petition schedule house." Rajagopalans were, according to the tenant, 'hale and healthy still going strong in their profession' and 'their claim that they were in the evening of their life' was not correct. Earlier it was stated: "Both the Rajagopalans are in Nigeria still on good and lucrative employment and they are not likely to come back to India and of all places to Calicut." (emphasis supplied) 9. As noted earlier, all the authorities have concurred to hold that the bona fides of the petitioner is established. The petitioner who filed the petition gave evidence as Pw.l. Rajagopalan was examined as Pw.2 on commission. Documents evidencing title and possession over the building, the correspondence exchanged between the parties and the letter of World Bank constituted the documentary evidence. 10. The contentions urged earlier but repeatedly rejected were projected in this Court also with much tenacity: the age of the Rajagopalans not being such as to induce them to an indolent life; the disinclination of people to reside in Calicut, after having been accustomed to modern life in posh cities; the inadequacy of Calicut to cope up with the educational requirements of the two daughters of Rajagopalans. On the basis of an attempt at adducing fresh evidence at a belated stage, it was urged that they are constructing houses in Bangalore and consequently, the building in Calicut would not be required for their residential purposes. 11. After considering these contentions, I have no hesitation to hold that every one of them is totally untenable. 12. The evidence in the case would clearly establish that Rajagopalans wanted to come back and settle down in Calicut. The idea was conceived in 1967 when they acquired the property. The first letter indicative of such an intention was sent in the year 1978. 12. The evidence in the case would clearly establish that Rajagopalans wanted to come back and settle down in Calicut. The idea was conceived in 1967 when they acquired the property. The first letter indicative of such an intention was sent in the year 1978. That was at a time when the project in Nigeria was nearing its end. Necessarily therefore the continued stay in Nigeria was only for limited duration. His desire to start residence in Calicut is also reflected in Ext. B2 and in his meeting the tenant in 1979. Ext. B2, the letter of 1979 expressed Rajagopalan's desire to meet the tenant. An earnest desire, and a need, to have the building for occupation, is discernible in that letter; the difficulty caused by the tenant not surrendering the building is also indicated. The letter discloses a refined mind and a fair attitude of Rajagopalan. A crucial conduct of the tenant on that occasion is his not having any doubt regarding the bona fides of the intention of Rajagopalans to return to India. It was perfectly reasonable and proper for the landlord to have filed the petition, when he got Ext. Al letter, indicative of the expiry of the contract after one year from Ist June, 1982. It must be noted that at that time the tenant had no doubt or dispute whatever about the bonafides on the part of Rajagopalans to return to India, and to Calicut, and to settle down there. His only excuse for not surrendering the building was the inability to find out an alternate accommodation. 13. A pretended change of mind is put forward in the course of the tenant's evidence. And that is based on an indefinite and unconvincing information which he claimed to have obtained. Such unjustified assertion of the tenant has been rightly discarded by all the authorities. The earlier conduct and admission of the tenant will completely knock off the bottom of his contention relating to lack of bonafides in the petition for eviction. 14. It was contended that having been accustomed to a very modern life, Rajagopalans were unlikely to come to Calicut. There is no basis for such a wild suggestion. The earlier conduct and admission of the tenant will completely knock off the bottom of his contention relating to lack of bonafides in the petition for eviction. 14. It was contended that having been accustomed to a very modern life, Rajagopalans were unlikely to come to Calicut. There is no basis for such a wild suggestion. It is well-known that after years of work outside the home State, many like, and intensely too, to return to the home State and have a peaceful retired life; for here are the tap roots, though there had been adventitious roots elsewhere. The sights and sounds of the State where one is born and brought up and one like Kerala endowed with Nature's blessings in generous profusion are likely to be irresistible in the evening of the life. 15. It was stated that fifty is not such an advanced age as to induce one to a retired life. May be, with medical developments, one is not infirm or incapacitated at that age. There is, however, nothing wrong, if at that age, a person prefers a more leisurely life; particularly when he had spent a hectic life for a long period outside the country. Again, an approach to age may vary from person to person. As Sir Edward Truner observes in his 'Unorthodox Reminiscences', "some are really old at forty five, others really young at Seventy. Lord Haldane was never young. Lord Buck Master was never old". Fifty is the stage when one joins the 'greys', with the hair on the pate waxing undoubtedly thinner, when one starts liking 'forty winks' after dinner, and when one is beset with aches. It is also interesting to remember in that connection that Cicero in his fifties began to idealise himself as an old man and wrote his De Senectute, exalting the pleasures of old age. 16. It was suggested that the wife of Rajagopalan was born in Malacca, that her parents were in Singapore, and consequently, it was unlikely that they would flee from the salubrious environment of Singapore, and come to Calicut with all its disadvantages. Here again, the tenant cannot impose on the landlord his own notions in the choice of a place for settling down in the later period of his life. 17. The contention based on the lack of educational facilities in Calicut of the two daughters of Rajagopalans, is equally frivolous. Here again, the tenant cannot impose on the landlord his own notions in the choice of a place for settling down in the later period of his life. 17. The contention based on the lack of educational facilities in Calicut of the two daughters of Rajagopalans, is equally frivolous. One had completed her Montessori training, and the other was pursuing education in London. It was suggested that they would not fit in with the educational environment of Calicut and the lack of facilities there. As observed by an eminent surgeon-writer: "Education of any kind is to the purpose: mode and place of education matter little." Calicut, is the seat of a University. Educational facilities there, are not utterly inadequate, even for girls or boys who have had their education overseas. It is common experience that many, who had had their education in the States or in Europe, switch on to the education in the Indian atmosphere. And many parents are quite often justifiably reluctant to expose their children to the hazards of a permissive society. 18. Calicut, is not a place where people may not hesitate to settle down. It has to its credit a historic tradition of being habited by honest and hospitable people. (See Kozhikode District Gazetteer). I had occasion to refer to the cosmopolitan character of the composition of its population, in Lela v. Ali, 1983 KLT. 685, at 688. 19. The final arguments were based on matters belatedly attempted to be brought in as evidence. It cannot be said that the authorities below erred in rejecting those arguments. The attempt was to show that Rajagopalans had commenced a construction activity in Bangalore. It was explained that the new buildings were intended to be provided for the two daughters, who are of, or approaching, marriageable age. This is a perfectly understandable and natural attitude on the part of parents, who have to get reconciled with the thoughts Hiawatha's father entertained: "Thus it is our daughters leave us, Those we love, and those who love us. Just when they have learned to help us," And the Court cannot blame Rajagopalan if he desires an uxorious ease. That does not spell in the annihilation of a bonafide desire of Rajagopalans to settle down in Calicut. 20. A contention that the owner of the building - Rajagopalan's wife-did not enter the witness box, was raised before the Revisional Authority. That does not spell in the annihilation of a bonafide desire of Rajagopalans to settle down in Calicut. 20. A contention that the owner of the building - Rajagopalan's wife-did not enter the witness box, was raised before the Revisional Authority. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Goverdhandas & Co. v. Samarathai Laila Chand Shah, AIR. 1981 Bombay 1. Some of the other decisions on which that contention may seek superficial support arc Sivaprakasam and others v. K.M. Sheriff, (1974) T.L N. J. 195 and Chinta Narayanamma v. Kholli Sahu and others, AIR. 1982 Orissa 183. In the latter case, the Bombay decision in Nanalal Goverdhandas & Company v. Smt. Samarathai Laila Chand Shah, AIR. 1981 Bombay 1, was followed by the Orissa High Court. In the Orissa case a bona fide requirement was founded on two grounds, (i) a necessity to sell the house of the landlord for discharging a loan obtained from the State Financial Corporation, (ii) a religious-sentimental reason, of having the house for the purpose of solemnising the marriage of the grand-daughter of the landlord; for, that was the house in which the family deity was installed. On the first ground the Rent Control Authorities concurrently found that "there was no clear and cogent material on the record, that the petitioner had incurred the loan..." The second reason urged was also rejected concurrently in view of the admission of the petitioner's grandson (who gave evidence in the case as Pw.3) that the marriage of his other sisters had been performed elsewhere. The Orissa decision is therefore a case where acceptable evidence was totally lacking for establishing the landlord's claim. The criticism of the rent control authorities in that case that the landlord deliberately avoided being examined is therefore understandable. The matters to be established in that case were directly and more appropriately within the knowledge of the landlord-petitioner. If in such circumstances, the landlord avoids the box projecting a pretence that a power of attorney has been executed in favour of another to conduct the case or to depose on behalf of the landlord as a justification for such conduct, the courts will be justified in condemning such conduct. If in such circumstances, the landlord avoids the box projecting a pretence that a power of attorney has been executed in favour of another to conduct the case or to depose on behalf of the landlord as a justification for such conduct, the courts will be justified in condemning such conduct. The reference to and the reliance upon the observations of the Bombay High Court in Goverdhandas's case supra by the Orissa High Court has to be understood in the peculiar factual matrix of that case. 21. It is unnecessary to discuss all the cases at any great length in this case. The Madras High Court had undertaken a review of the above cases in K. R. Shah & another v. Visalakshi,1983 (2) R. C. J. 610. It was noted that Sivaprakasam's case supra was one where there was no evidence by the concerned person nor any other evidence. The difference in the statutory setting in the Bombay enactment was also referred to. Ultimately the court observed: "It is not correct to state that in every case filed the petitioner must enter into the box and depose the requirement." I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court. 22. The statutory scheme of the Kerala Act is similar to the one in the background of which the Madras High Court expressed the above view. Moreover, there may be a variety of justifiable grounds which preclude the landlord from giving evidence in the case directly and in person. To consign a petition for eviction to an irredeemable doom in such cases, for the only reason that the landlord did not himself give the evidence, even when there was abundance of other evidence establishing the claim, would be a gross deflection of the course of justice. It is not an inflexible requirement of law that the landlord should necessarily enter the witness box to give the evidence. It would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, as stated earlier, there is abundance of materials and evidence which will establish the landlord's claim. The rejection of the contention of the tenant based on Goverdhandas's case supra by the authorities below was fully justified. pw. 2 the husband of the landlady was fully competent to swear to the material facts establishing the specific plea put forward as a ground for eviction. The rejection of the contention of the tenant based on Goverdhandas's case supra by the authorities below was fully justified. pw. 2 the husband of the landlady was fully competent to swear to the material facts establishing the specific plea put forward as a ground for eviction. In a sense, he was more competent to speak about the material facts such as the termination of his contract of service in Nigeria and the consequent necessity for a return to the home State. It was he who had had correspondence and conversation with the tenant. To insist that even in such a case the landlady herself should appear in court and give evidence, is totally unreasonable. I reject the contention of the tenant of this aspect also. 23. The contentions in the revision petition are totally devoid of merit. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Dismissed.