Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The Rent Control Court, Alappuzha had found justification in the application for own occupation of a building let out, in R. C. P. No. 1/1988 and had directed eviction of the tenant, but in the appeal filed by the tenant, the judgment got reversed as the appellate court was of the view that bonafide need had not been established. This revision has been filed in the aforesaid circumstances, challenging the order of the appellate authority. 2. Sri. Raman Pillai, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the appellate authority committed an error in coming to the finding that there was no bonafide need established. Sri. Parameswara Panicker appearing for the respondent held that no interference was warranted in exercise of the power conferred under S.20 of the Act. The brief facts, which are relevant might be given below; The landlord who is an elderly person has two buildings in the town, and he occupies one of them himself, with family members. He had urged eviction of the rented building, for the reason that his married son was in need of premises for occupation who was dependent on him for the purpose. The son had got married on 29.4.1984 and in 1986, a notice had been issued to the respondent pointing out that the building may be vacated. There was no written reply, and according to him, the tenant had offered to move out expeditiously. As this did not happen, ultimately, the application has been filed. The tenant had initially denied the title of the landlord, and he opposed the application tooth and nail. The landlord and his son had tendered evidence. Respondent had also examined himself. The lower authority held that bona fide requirement had been made out. The authority had also overruled the subsidiary contentions of the tenant. It has also come in evidence that a suit for specific performance had been filed by the tenant as O.S. No. 64/1988 before the Sub Court of Alappuzha, on the plea of an oral agreement, but the suit had been dismissed and confirmed in appeal. 3. The authority had also overruled the subsidiary contentions of the tenant. It has also come in evidence that a suit for specific performance had been filed by the tenant as O.S. No. 64/1988 before the Sub Court of Alappuzha, on the plea of an oral agreement, but the suit had been dismissed and confirmed in appeal. 3. The appellate authority, inter alia, relying on observations made by this Court, that bona fides being a condition of mind was incapable of direct evidence and it was a matter of inference from the circumstances and a desire cannot amount to bona fide need within the meaning of S.11(3) of the Act since the need was to be genuine reversed the findings of the Rent Control Authority. According to the appellate authority, need had not been established, as could be assessed of the following circumstances: 1. The marriage was on 29.4.1984 and after the above date, within a few months the plaint schedule property had been let out to the tenant. 2. A notice had been issued as early as in 1986, but there was delay in follow up procedure. 3. There was attempt made by the landlord subsequently, to sell the plaint schedule properties as also his own residential house and this did not tally with the plea urged in the petition, viz, of own occupation for a dependent. 4. The evidence tendered was insufficient to substantiate a plea for eviction. 4. We are afraid, the reasonings and findings of the appellate authority, are not tenable. In effect, we find that by reversing the decision of the authority, an impropriety has resulted and it has led to illegality whereby, inspite of presence of materials, the claims stand rejected and the decision should not be permitted to stand. We are giving below the reasons for our conclusion. 5. The first reasoning given by appellate authority is that after a few months of the marriage of PW2 in 1984, the building had been let out. The argument upheld was that if as a matter of fact, there was need for own occupation, a tenant might not have parted with the property, but would have arranged occupation. Of course, relying on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is stated that immediately after the marriage, the wife of PW2 was insisted for separate residence. But this cannot be taken in isolation. Of course, relying on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is stated that immediately after the marriage, the wife of PW2 was insisted for separate residence. But this cannot be taken in isolation. The reason that had been urged in 1986, and again reiterated in the plaint in 1988 was that they required separate occupation. PW2 was having wife and a child. It had also come out in evidence that the landlord has other children. They occupy a small house and it was hardly sufficient to accommodate them in its condition especially when children made visits. When it is admitted that there was marriage in 1984, it is not difficult to comprehend that need had arisen thereafter and the need might have increased as the years passed by making it a pressing necessity. Further, the written statement, plea and trend of cross examination indicate that in 1984, the plaint schedule property was in a most dilapidated condition unfit for occupation. The claim of the tenant was that he had spent more than eleven thousand rupees for repair to make it worthy of living at that time. We may extract the relevant portion of the objections as following: " ..During 1984, the above said building was kept vacant as it was not fit for residence, and in dilapidated condition. At that time, the counter petitioner was badly in need of an accommodation and on request, petitioner allowed the counter petitioner to make necessary repairs, with a definite understanding that the amount so spent will be reimbursed on a future date. The petitioner agreed to give the building to the counter petitioner for 1 year on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- p. m. Accordingly, counter petitioner made necessary repairs to the building spending Rs. 11, 500/- from his account and convinced the petitioner the amount so spent by showing vouchers and bills etc. " 6. The deposition of PW1 who claims to be a merchant shows that he was in perennial need of funds and was indebted to all and sundry and suits were being filed against him by banks and other institutions. The position of son also is not anything to be boasted of, as he depended on his father's grocery shop. Therefore, it may not have been possible for him to arrange accommodation of his son in the building which required extensive repairs. The position of son also is not anything to be boasted of, as he depended on his father's grocery shop. Therefore, it may not have been possible for him to arrange accommodation of his son in the building which required extensive repairs. When the tenant had offered to effect necessary repairs at his expense, in October, 1984 the building might have been leased out to him. It was for a period of 11 months. Therefore, the conduct of the landlord of giving the premises on rent after a few months of marriage does not ipso facto lead to a presumption that there was absence of bona fides in the application filed in 1988. 7. The second contention relied on by the appellate authority was that there was delay in filing the application, after notice was sent. This also is but satisfactorily explained at the time of evidence. The tenant has no case that he has sent the reply at all. The version of the landlord that the tenant was only asking for time to vacate the building was not something obnoxious and the delay in approaching this Court therefore could not have led to an inference that there was only an experimental effort. Obviously, the tenant had outstayed the welcome. 8. The third and fourth circumstances that have been relied on by the appellate authority is the attempt made by the landlord to sell away the properties. Therefore, the claim of own occupation was, according to the appellate authority, a doubtful proposition. But, there was also evidence of the landlord which indicates that he was in need for money and was trying to dispose of the properties, be it the plaint schedule property or the residential house in which he was living, so as to ease himself out of difficult situation. When proceedings protract and no end is seen, landlord might have tried to think of disposing of the properties, in his possession or ownership. The evidence of PW1 is clear to the extent that he had been trying to receive funds by attempting to sell away what he owned. This also in fact according to us, shows the bonafide need and never could have been characterised as circumstance for denying relief to the landlord for enforcing eviction. The evidence of PW1 is clear to the extent that he had been trying to receive funds by attempting to sell away what he owned. This also in fact according to us, shows the bonafide need and never could have been characterised as circumstance for denying relief to the landlord for enforcing eviction. After recapitulation of the situation, we are of the view that the Rent Control Court had correctly appraised of the situation with reference to the materials that had forthcome before him. The interference made by the appellate authority was therefore not warranted. 9. Many a time a witness may be unsure, vain, vociferous or may make misleading statements, comments or claims, adding difficulty for arriving at correct conclusions. For example, in this case, the appellate authority extracted the following statement of PW2, for totally disbelieving the claim of bonafide occupation: 10. Marriage was in April, and the available building was let out during October, and the Court was of the view that when from day one, there was pressure for shifting, the conduct of landlord was against normal conduct. It is one thing for a wife to insist, for shifting, and need will be there resulting therefrom, but economics play not a small role before one ventures. Also we see that the outburst as above came from a rustic mind, unpolluted by city's polish. The fate of the case cannot turn about because of such a stray expression and he expressed about his wife's wish and the ultimate decision had to come from the father. The application has to be considered out of the overall facts presented, sifting the relevant from the irrelevant. The pleadings also deserved the greatest attention. 11. The plaint schedule building was in disuse for about seven years, and essentially required a face lift. Though vainly PWs.1 and 2 claimed that it was usable, statements in the objections (already extracted) and evidence of CPWs. 2 and 3, the Contractor and mason conclusively showed that it was dilapidated. Thus, even if PW2 wanted to shift to it in 1984, he could not have done it, and the landlord had no funds. Thus the crucial facts for assessment of the situation were, inadvertently though, contributed by the respondent. The appellate court had omitted to objectively examine these aspects. Thus, even if PW2 wanted to shift to it in 1984, he could not have done it, and the landlord had no funds. Thus the crucial facts for assessment of the situation were, inadvertently though, contributed by the respondent. The appellate court had omitted to objectively examine these aspects. We are pointing out to the manner in which the pleadings, and evidence have to be taken notice of, sifted and appreciated - simultaneously pointing out to the danger of being misled, by relying on stray statements, admissions-, opinions or versions. 12. It is directed that if the tenant deposits the entire arrears This Civil Revision Petition will stand dismissed.