ORDER K.K. Usha, J. 1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. R.C.P. 12/87 was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant under S.11(2)(a)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The rent control court disallowed the claim under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii). In the appeal filed before the rent control appellate authority, the finding on the claim under S.11(4)(ii) was affirmed. But the appellate authority held that the landlord has proved bona fide need for occupation of his son and on that ground allowed eviction. Aggrieved by the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, the tenant has come up in revision. 2. The tenanted building is a shop room situate in 2 1/2 cents of land at Payyannur. Petitioner sought eviction of the above premises on the ground that his son needs the premises to open a branch of his partnership business carried on at Taliparamba and that his son can then reside permanently at Payyannur where his parents are also residing. The respondent tenant contended that there is no bona fides in the above prayer. According to him, petitioners son has got a flourishing business establishment at Taliparamba which is being managed by him exclusively. The need put forward, namely, to start a business at Payyannur is without any bona fides. The son of the petitioner is permanently residing at Taliparamba. He further submitted that he is entitled to the protection under the second proviso. 3. Rent Control Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish bona fide need as alleged in the petition. While coming to the above conclusion rent control court has observed that petitioners son and his partners in the business now run at Taliparamba had no case that they are under threat of eviction from Taliparamba and that the partners have not taken any decision with respect to the manner in which the business at Taliparamba and Payyannur had to be managed after getting eviction of the petition schedule room. The rent control court has noted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent tenant had agreed with the proposition that it is open to the petitioner to seek eviction of the building for the purpose of partnership business conducted by his son. The rent control court has noted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent tenant had agreed with the proposition that it is open to the petitioner to seek eviction of the building for the purpose of partnership business conducted by his son. But, according to him, in the facts of the case, there was no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in putting forward such a claim. On appeal, the rent control appellate authority reversed the finding of the rent control court and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had proved bona fide need. Reliance was placed by the appellate authority on the evidence of PW. 1, the petitioner, PW 2, his son and also PW 4, another partner of PW 2 in the business carried on at Taliparamba. The appellate authority further found that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso as there is substantial evidence in this case adduced by the landlord that alternate accommodation is available in the locality. 4. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the rent control appellate authority has wrongly applied the dictum contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishnan Nair and others v. Ghouse Basha 1987 (4) SCC 404 . According to him, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which was subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court are different from the provisions in the Kerala Act. It is further pointed out that from the description given in Ext. X1 partnership deed, it can be seen that petitioner's son was residing at Taliparamba and therefore the case put forward by the petitioner that his son is staying at Payyannur and he found it difficult to commute between Taliparamba and Payyannur cannot be accepted. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that need of a partnership cannot be relied on to find need of a member of the partnership as a dependant of the landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is open to the landlord to seek eviction for the purpose of accommodating a business which he is carrying on in partnership with other partners. This position has been approved by this Court in Jameela v. Moosa, 1981 KLT 791 . Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is open to the landlord to seek eviction for the purpose of accommodating a business which he is carrying on in partnership with other partners. This position has been approved by this Court in Jameela v. Moosa, 1981 KLT 791 . According to the respondent, the position will not change even when the landlords seeks eviction for the bona fide need of his son to accommodate a partnership business in which his son is a partner. In support of the above contention, learned counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in M. Aishath Najiya v. M/s. Lalchand Kewalram and others, AIR 1990 Mad. 36 . In the above case, it was held that a petition for eviction filed under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act to accommodate a partnership firm in which the member of the landlord's family is a partner along with strangers would be maintainable if the member of landlord's family in the partnership are directly and substantially involved in the partnership business considering the extent of his interest in the business or the part he plays, that is, as active partner and not as sleeping partner. Same was the view taken in Rajalakshmi Ammal and another v. S.S. Piramanayagam Pillai, 92 L.W. 68. 5. We find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner that a landlord cannot seek eviction under S.11(3) for accommodating a partnership business in which a member of his family dependant on him is a partner. The wording of sub-s.(3) of S.11 would not justify a restricted meaning as suggested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As mentioned earlier, the tenant also had taken the stand before the appellate authority that there is no legal infirmity in a landlord seeking eviction for the purpose of accommodating the partnership business of his son. 6. The wording of sub-s.(3) of S.11 would not justify a restricted meaning as suggested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As mentioned earlier, the tenant also had taken the stand before the appellate authority that there is no legal infirmity in a landlord seeking eviction for the purpose of accommodating the partnership business of his son. 6. An attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing 6n behalf of the petitioner to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in 1987 (4) SCC 404 supra contending that the decision has to be understood in the light of the provisions contained in S.10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act He submits that the concept of dependency is lacking in the above provision under S.1(3) of the Kerala Act, landlord can seek eviction under S.11(3) for the need of his family member only if the member is dependant on him. But, under the Tamil Nadu Act, the family member need not be dependant on the landlord. Therefore, the learned counsel submits, the need for accommodating a partnership business of the son of the petitioner is in conflict with the requirement of dependency. We find no reason to accept the above contention. The principle underlying the decision of the Supreme Court is that so long as the members of the family are actually carrying on business in partnership with others as active partners and not as sleeping partner, they will be entitled to the benefit of eviction. This principle can be applied even when the partner-son should have the further qualification of being a dependant on the petitioner father. Therefore, we are of the view that the dictum laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court is applicable to the present case also. 7. Then the only other question to be considered in this case is whether there is bona fides on the part of the landlord in putting forward a claim for eviction under S.11(3). In this respect, we have the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 6. From their evidence, it has come out that petitioner's son who was examined as PW.2 has substantial interest in the partnership business which he is running at Taliparamba and that he is an active partner. PW 2 is the only son of the petitioner. Petitioner and his wife are residing near Payyannur. 1, 2 and 6. From their evidence, it has come out that petitioner's son who was examined as PW.2 has substantial interest in the partnership business which he is running at Taliparamba and that he is an active partner. PW 2 is the only son of the petitioner. Petitioner and his wife are residing near Payyannur. Petitioner's son requires the disputed building to start a branch of the whole sale business so that he can stay near Payyannur where his parents are residing. He was finding it difficult to commute from Payyannur to taliparamba where, at present, his partnership business is carried on. The suggestion put to him that he is residing in his wife's house at Taliparamba has been denied by him. He explains that in Ext.X1 his address is given was at Taliparamba since he is carrying on the business at Taliparamba. The evidence of PW 4 also would support the case put forward by the petitioner and his son PW 2. In the light of the above evidence available in this case, we find no reason to interfere with the finding entered by the appellate authority that the landlord has proved the bona fide need put forward under S.11(3). 8. The tenant had not adduced any evidence apart from his interested testimony to show that the income derived from the business in the tenanted building in his main source of livelihood. Petitioner had produced Exts. A11 to A 13 newspaper advertisements to show that shop rooms are available for rent in the locality. The Commissioner has also reported in Ext. C1 report that alternate accommodation is available for the tenant to accommodate his business near the petition schedule building itself. The tenant has not adduced any contra evidence. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the attack made by the revision petitioner against the finding by the appellate authority that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to S.11(3). No grounds are made out by the revision petitioner for interference with the judgment of the rent control appellate authority in this revisional jurisdiction. In the result, the revision petition fails and it stands dismissed.