Judgment :- Over lour decades passed since a building situated on a commercial street at Kozhikode (Sweet Meet Street) was rented out to the petitioner. He has been paying a rent of Rs. 70/- per month from the beginning without increasing the rate despite repeated requests of the landlord. Eventually an application for eviction was filed by the land lord on certain grounds under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the act), main among which is the ground that he needs the building to start his own business. Petitioner (tenant) adopted different defences to resist the claim for eviction. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the application, the appellate Authority allowed it on the ground under S.11(3) of the Act and the District Judge, in revision, did not interfere. Hence, petitioner has filed this original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. 2. Landlord's case, as found by the authorities below, is that the building was let out in 1951 on a rent of Rs. 70/- per month, and petitioner was conducting initially stationery business in the building and later a medical shop under the name "Janatha Medicals". The landlord was residing in Thiruchirapally where he was conducting a Radio Institute, but he went to Kozhikode as his ancestral home is at Chalappuram (in Kozhikode) and settled down there. Rent Control Court did not uphold the bona fides of landlord's claim to have this building for his own use. But the appellate Authority, after finding that landlord's claim is bona fide, proceeded further and found that petitioner is not entitled to the benefits envisaged in the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. 3. Petitioner stoutly disputed landlord's case that the latter had settled clown at Kozhikode. The landlord produced, at the appellate stage, a ration card (marked as Ext. A.50 by the appellate authority) to substantiate his contention that he has already started residing at Kozhikode. appellate Authority in reversal of the finding of the Rent Control Court, accepted landlord's case that he left Thiruchirappally for good and settled down at Kozhikode and that he bona fide requires the building to house the institute proposed by him. This view was confirmed by the District Judge in revision. 4. appellate Authority in reversal of the finding of the Rent Control Court, accepted landlord's case that he left Thiruchirappally for good and settled down at Kozhikode and that he bona fide requires the building to house the institute proposed by him. This view was confirmed by the District Judge in revision. 4. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application should have been dismissed as the same was filed by only one of the co-owners of the building without junction of other co-owners. In support of the said contention, reference was made to the decision in Kunhalu v. Baputty (1991 (2) KLT598). This contention does not merit acceptance since it is well nigh settled that one co-owner without junction of other co-owners can maintain an action for eviction of the tenant (vide Sri Ram Pasricha Jagannath - AIR 1976 SC 2335; Kanta Goely. B.P. Pathak-AIR 197" 1599 and Krishnan Nair v. Lakshmi Amma -1986 KLT 558). The observations made by the learned single judge in Kunhalu's case were considered in the light of the above Supreme Court decisions and this Court in judgment dated 24-4-1992 (in O.P.4319/92) has made it clear that those observations in Kunhalu's case are only obiter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner complained that appellate Authority ought not have admitted Ext. A50 at the appellate stage without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce counter evidence thereto. But, neither the appellate Authority nor the District Court in revision has relied on Ext. A50. Hence the admission of Ext. A50 at the appellate stage did not prejudice the petitioner. 6. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bona fides for the landlord's plea since it is admitted that the tenant has refused to give increased rent despite landlord's repeated demands. True, there is enough evidence in this case to show that landlord has been making requests to the petitioner to increase the rent from Rs. 70/- and the petitioner repeatedly declined to oblige him. But the appellate Authority and the revisional authority were not inclined to use the said circumstance as a point against the bona fides of his claim that he requires the building for his own use. 7. 70/- and the petitioner repeatedly declined to oblige him. But the appellate Authority and the revisional authority were not inclined to use the said circumstance as a point against the bona fides of his claim that he requires the building for his own use. 7. While it cannot be forgotten that rent control law is a piece of social legislation mainly meant to protect the tenants against frivolous evictions, it must also be borne in mind that certain salutary provisions have been incorporated in such enactments affording certain reliefs to the landlord also in order to do justice to him as well and to avoid placing such restrictions on his right to evict the tenant as to shatter his legal right to his property to smithereens. It is worth noticing that one of the grounds for eviction envisaged in almost all rent control enactments in this country is the personal need of the landlord to use the premises. It is necessary to give a meaningful and pragmatic construction to the concept of "bona fide need of the landlord". (Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti - AIR 1980 S.C.161). 8. The mere fact that a landlord demanded higher rent on previous occasions which the tenant declined to oblige is not a reflection of any oblique motive on the part of landlord claiming eviction on the ground of his own need to occupy the building. It is only normal propensity of a landlord to desire increase in the rent for his building from time to time. Such a desire expressed is not a mark of misconduct in landlord-tenant relationship. Of course, if the tenant establishes that the landlord nurtures grouse towards his tenant for persistently refusing to reciprocate his request to increase the rent, it may have a bearing on the question of bona fides of the particular landlord's move for eviction on this ground. However, no presumption of mala fides can be drawn just because the tenant declined' to increase the rent demanded by the landlord. 9. Ramanujam, J. has observed in Abdu Rahiman v. Sadasivam (1984 (1) MLJ 410) that merely because there was at some stage a demand by the landlord for higher rent, the application seeking his own premises for carrying on his business, cannot be said to be either mala fide or that the application for eviction is filed for an oblique purpose. Ramanujam, J. has observed in Abdu Rahiman v. Sadasivam (1984 (1) MLJ 410) that merely because there was at some stage a demand by the landlord for higher rent, the application seeking his own premises for carrying on his business, cannot be said to be either mala fide or that the application for eviction is filed for an oblique purpose. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. 10. It was lastly contended that subsequent to the commencement of the present rent control proceedings, landlord sold away another building which belonged to him which fetched much higher rent to him. This was pointed out as a reflection of lack of bona fides of his present claim. Learned counsel contended that such subsequent events can be taken cognizance of by the court as the Supreme Court has observed in P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders (AIR 1975 SC 1409). No doubt subsequent events in the facts of a case having material bearing on the landlord's right to evict could legitimately be taken cognizance of particularly in the light of the aforesaid decision. But in this case, landlord has repudiated in categoric terms the allegation that he sold away any other building. That apart, transfer of any other building which is not in the occupation of the landlord does not prima facie show that his present need is not genuine. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the orders impugned. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.