Judgment :- 1. The parties to this Revision Petition are close relatives. The Revision Petitioners are the tenants of a building owned by the respondents. The respondents' application for eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was rejected by the Rent Controller. However, on appeal by the landlords, the Appellate Authority allowed the application. The learned Sub-Judge found that the landlords had bona fide need of the building and that the tenants did not prove that there was no other suitable building available in the locality for them to carry on their trade or business. The learned Sub-Judge, however, did not go into the question as to whether the tenants depended for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from their trade or business carried on in the building. On appeal by the tenants, the District Court affirmed the finding of the Appellate Authority as to the bona fide need of the landlords and allowed eviction. The District Court, however, set aside the finding of the Appellate Authority as to the non-availability of a suitable building in the locality. The District Court found that the tenants had adduced evidence to show that no other suitable building was available in the locality and they were not cross-examined on the point. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the court held that the tenants had proved that no other suitable building was available in the locality. Nevertheless eviction was allowed for the reason that the tenants failed to prove that they depended for their livelihood on the income derived from their trade or business carried on in the building. In coming to this finding the learned District Judge appreciated the evidence which the Appellate Authority failed to consider. 2. It is clear from the proceedings so far that, although the landlords' application was rejected by the Rent Controller, both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority found that the landlords bad bona fide need to occupy the building in question. This is a concurrent finding based on evidence, and it must remain final. However, as regards the essential ingredients of the second proviso to S.11 (3), there is no finding by the Appellate Authority on the question whether the tenants depended for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from their trade or business carried on in the building. This is a concurrent finding based on evidence, and it must remain final. However, as regards the essential ingredients of the second proviso to S.11 (3), there is no finding by the Appellate Authority on the question whether the tenants depended for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from their trade or business carried on in the building. The finding on that point is rendered only by the Revisional Authority. It has to be appreciated that, notwithstanding proof of bona fide need, the landlords are not entitled to evict the tenants until the two ingredients of the second proviso to S.11(3) are clearly found against the tenants. 3. The two ingredients are not disjunctive, but conjunctive, and therefore both the ingredients have to be found against the tenant before the landlord could be ordered to be put in possession of the building, the bona fide need notwithstanding. The second proviso to S 11(3) is mandatory. It says: "Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business." (emphasis supplied) This imperative provision casts the burden of proof on the tenant (see Kochappan Pillai v. Chellappan, 1976 KLT.1) Once the tenant has succeeded in proving the two crucial facts mentioned in the second proviso to S.11(3), the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to evict him. 4. The burden is of course upon the tenant to let in evidence, but he has a right to have bis evidence considered by not only the Rent Control Court, but also the Appellate Authority. The Revisional Authority acting under S.20 of the Act has wide power, in comparison to the power of a Revisional Court under S.115 of the CPC., to examine the legality, regularity and propriety of an order under revision. It is however not within the province of the Revisional Authority to embark on consideration of evidence to come to a finding on an essential ingredient when no finding has been rendered on the point by the Appellate Authority. It is however not within the province of the Revisional Authority to embark on consideration of evidence to come to a finding on an essential ingredient when no finding has been rendered on the point by the Appellate Authority. In fact the absence of a finding by the Appellate Authority touches on the legality, regularity or propriety of the order under revision, and it warrants interference, not by a finding for the first time by the Revisional Authority himself, but by calling for a finding by the Appellate Authority. S.20A specifically confers the power of remand upon the Revisional Authority. 5. In my view two questions are required to be considered. The first question is, what I have already referred to, namely, a finding by the Appellate Authority as to the question whether the tenants have discharged the burden of proof concerning their dependence for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from their trade carried on in the building. The Appellate Authority shall come to a finding on this question on the basis of the evidence already on record. 6. On the other point, I am of the view that a fresh opportunity should be afforded to both the parties to let in evidence. That point is as regards the availability of a suitable building in the locality. "Locality" is an expression which does not necessarily coincide with the extent of a city or town or village. Dependent on the size of the city or town or village, "locality" has to be considered with reference to the reasonable distance from the location of the building in question The tenant has by reason of his business built up a reputation and goodwill centred round the place of his business, i.e., the building in question. To shift to a place far away from where he had earned a goodwill might put him at a disadvantage. It is, therefore, the legislative intent to protect the tenant by allowing him to remain within a reasonable radius of the centre of his business so that he may continue to reap the benefit of the business reputation. In other words "locality" must be understood as any place within a reasonable radius of his business activity. This is a question of fact which varies from case to case, depending on the size of the town, the size and nature of the business, etc. In other words "locality" must be understood as any place within a reasonable radius of his business activity. This is a question of fact which varies from case to case, depending on the size of the town, the size and nature of the business, etc. It may be co-extensive in a particular case with a village or town. The tenants have stated in the present case that there is no other building in the "locality" They do not say what exactly they meant by "locality". They have not stated that no building is available within a distance of say two or three miles from the building in question. The landlords have not chosen to cross-examine them on the extremely meagre evidence the tenants have let in on the point. In the circumstances I am of the view that it would be fair to both parties if they are allowed to let in evidence as regards this particular ingredient of the second proviso to S.11 (3), namely, the availability of a suitable building. These two questions have to be found by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly I set aside the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority on points found by them other than the question of bona fide need. The finding of the two authorities on the bona fide need of the landlords shall remain undisturbed. The Appellate Authority shall proceed to consider the existence of the two ingredients in the second proviso to S.11 (3). I make it clear that fresh evidence shall be let in only on the point concerning the availability of suitable building in the locality. The burden of proof, as I have already indicated, is squarely on the tenants. The Appellate Authority shall also consider the question as regards the present state of the alleged arrears of rent and pass suitable order with particular reference to S.11(2)(c). The Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.