JUDGMENT 1. This Original Petition arise out of rent control proceedings initiated against the petitioner for eviction of 1st respondent. 2. Petitioner is the landlord of a building in Calicut Corporation. He filed R.C. P. No. 36 of 1980 before the 2nd respondent. The building was let out to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 62. Petitioner was working as a Freelance Cine Cameraman in Madras and it is his case that he has now shifted his residence to Calicut along with his wife. According to petitioner, his elder daughter got married and is settled in Bombay and his son completed his studies in 1980 and petitioner decided to wind up his establishment in Madras and shift to Kerala. It is further averred that the house occupied by 1st respondent, situated in Calicut, was allotted to his share in 1974 and therefore he desired to seek eviction of the tenant, from the building invoking S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is also alleged that being a Cameraman for Malayalam Cinema, he was mostly in Kerala, that the house occupied by 1st respondent is adjoining to the house of his father in the same compound and even if the petitioner had to leave Calicut, the presence of his parents would be a great comfort for his wife. It is stated that in the above circumstances the building is bona fide required for the residence of petitioner and his family. It is further alleged that petitioner has no other house of his own in Calicut and he was staying in Madras in a rented house, and . that it will be inconvenient for his wife to stay in Madras alone, when he happened to go out for shooting. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by 1st respondent, it is stated that petitioner was working in Singapore and different places in Madras as also in other States in India as Cameraman. It is also stated that the parents of petitioner are not old and they are keeping good health and they need not have any help from the petitioner and therefore there is no truth in the allegation that shifting of residence to Calicut was necessitated for their benefit also. 4. It is also stated that the parents of petitioner are not old and they are keeping good health and they need not have any help from the petitioner and therefore there is no truth in the allegation that shifting of residence to Calicut was necessitated for their benefit also. 4. When he was examined as P.W. 1, petitioner stated that it was not necessary for him to reside in Madras to carry on his work as Cameraman and it was for the bona fide residence of himself and his family that he wanted the building. He also stated that he can carry on the work of Cameraman at any place in Kerala, residing in the house at Calicut and there is no necessity to pay rent for a rented house and that he had no house of his own at Calicut except this house. 5. The 2nd respondent, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plea of bona fide need is true and in that view of the matter, passed an order for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Ext. P-1 is the said order. Against this, 1st respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding and held that bona fide need has not been made out and in that view, ordered to dismiss the petition for eviction, Ext, P-2 is the said order. Aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority, petitioner filed a revision before 4th respondent, but Ext. P-2 was confirmed by revisional authority by Ext. P-3 judgment and it is in the above circumstances, the Original "Petition was filed. 6. Normally, this court in exercise of powers under Art.226 or 227 of Constitution of India will not interfere with a finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority and the revisional authority, though the finding was in conflict with the finding of Rent Controller. It is only in very exceptional cases, where the court, is satisfied that the finding is perverse or there is no evidence to justify the conclusion or that the court thinks that no reasonable person, would have come to that conclusion or there is grave miscarriage of justice, the court will disturb a finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority and revisional authority. (See Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram AIR 1987 SC 117 , Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty AIR 1987 SC 2055 , M/s Sigma Agencies (P) Ltd. v. P. V. Thomas and others 1990 (2) KLT 454 , Glhayath Lekshmy Amma and another v. Nellachinkuniyil Govindan Nair and others 1990 (3) SCC 374 , Kerala Sugar Agencies v. Jose 1992 (1) KLT 635 . 7. In Ext. P-1 order, the Rent Control Court observed that except two or three Studios in Kerala the entire film world in Malayalam is centered at Madras and it is also a notorious fact that most of the well known actors and technicians in the film world reside almost permanently at Madras with very rare exceptions. He also observed that it may not be without reason, for, opportunity of easy or ready mutual contact and touch with producers is always a necessity. It may be noticed that one of the grounds mentioned by petitioner for shifting to Calicut was that most of his work is in Malayalam Films and that he had to come to Kerala for shooting and therefore it would be more convenient for him to reside in Calicut. It is in that context, the learned Rent Control Court made the above observation. However, the Rent Control Court thought that the petitioner intended to send his son for higher -education to Bombay, and that when the petitioner is on out station work, his wife would be alone in his house and in those circumstances the anxiety and fear of petitioner is quite natural. It is also pointed out that petitioner's parents are residing in another house near the petition scheduled building and in the circumstances, the wife of petitioner would be in a safer place during his out station work. However, the appellate authority and revisional authority did not agree with the above findings. 8. The Appellate Authority has observed that though the petitioner has got a case that his main avocation is shifted to Kerala, the evidence did not support it and even now, he depends upon the availability of work at Madras and shooting is held in Madras and Kerala. He also came to the conclusion that so long as the petitioner continue his work as Cameraman, he will have to stay at Madras and any shifting from Madras would certainly affect his career as a Cameraman. He also came to the conclusion that so long as the petitioner continue his work as Cameraman, he will have to stay at Madras and any shifting from Madras would certainly affect his career as a Cameraman. It also found that so long as petitioner continues his avocation at Madras, the residence of his wife and children at Calicut will be only disadvantage to the petitioner. 9. As P.W. 1, petitioner admitted that ever since he and his family came back from Singapore, they were residing at Madras, where he was working as Cameraman in film industry. It was also conceded that Madras is a place, where most of the Malayalam films are produced. Petitioner admitted as P.W. 1 that well equipped studios are available in Madras. He also admitted that bulk of his contracts were obtained from Madras. Though petitioner averred that he shifted to Calicut, the evidence disclosed that he continues to stay in Madras. It is in those circumstances that the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority considered that the petitioner's contention that it is in the interest of profession that he wanted to shift to Calicut cannot be considered as genuine. The revisional authority also referred to Ext. B-1. where he expressed desire to sell the building at Calicut to the tenant at a reasonable price. No doubt, Ext. B-1 was written by petitioner to 1st respondent on 27th March 1977, three years prior to the filing of the petition for eviction. However, in his evidence as P.W. 1, he stated that bona fide need arose some three years ago. The revisional authority relied on the evidence also in finding that bona fide need is not established. The finding arrived at by the appellate authority and revisional authority that there is no bona fide need cannot be said to be without evidence. The very fact that both the appellate authority and revisional authority came to the same conclusion about bona fide need is also indicative of the fact that it is a reasonable and possible view. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Original Petition. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.