ORDER J.M. James, J. 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord (Petitioner in the rent control petition) filed the petition under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, the Act'. The Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla allowed the eviction under S.11(3) if the Act, and dismissed the prayer under other two grounds. The tenant filed R.C.A. No. 1/93. The Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 2. The brief facts for disposal of the case are that, the tenant is in occupation of the centre room in the building having three rooms by paying an enhanced rent of Rs. 75/ per month. The landlord has passed B.Sc. examination with Mathematics as main subject and was teaching in a tutorial college, and his wife is B.Sc., B.Ed. Both of them worked as teachers in Africea. Two years prior to the filing of the petition, they returned and started residing in the building situated behind the petition schedule room. Both the husband and wife bona fide require the petition schedule room for starting a tutorial college. The other two rooms, on either side of the petition schedule room,, have been given vacant possession by the respective tenants to the landlord. Due to the careless use of the room, the floor and walls of the room are damaged by the tenant. There are other vacant rooms available in the locality for conducting Welding business which the tenant is doing in the petition schedule room. The tenant also has got other means of livelihood. The rent is due from the tenant with effect from July 1988. Hence, the petition. 3. When the rent control petition was pending for adducing evidence, and while the landlord was cross examined as P.W.1, he fainted and fell down. Subsequently he died. Therefore, his wife and two children were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. They pursued the rent control petition and completed the evidence. 4. The tenant filed counter contending that the petition schedule room was taken on rent in 1973 by paying a rent of Rs. 40/ per month. It was enhanced on number of occasions. From 1985, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 75/per month. After working in Africa from 1957 to 1986, the original petitioner and his wife came back with huge amount. 40/ per month. It was enhanced on number of occasions. From 1985, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 75/per month. After working in Africa from 1957 to 1986, the original petitioner and his wife came back with huge amount. The wife of the petitioner is employed in Brothern English Medium School, Kumbanadu. She was also in Africa with her husband. They have no experience, ability or health to conduct a tutorial college. There is no damage caused to the floor and walls of the petition scheduled room. The petitioners have got 4 acres of land and also income from other sources, including money lending. The tenant is married having children. He is depending on the income of the Welding work held in the schedule room. The two employees arc also depending on the business. No other rooms are available in the locality. No. rent is in arrears. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The evidence consist of PWs 1 to 3 and Exhibits Al and A2 for the petitioners. The tenant examined C.P. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exhibit B1. The learned Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence, allowed the petition under S.11(3) alone which was later confirmed in appeal. 6. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the tenant has raised only one important question before this court as to whether, consequent on the death,of the original petitioner, the wife can continue to plead the same bona fide need urged by her late husband. We shall, therefore, examine the evidence available on records, and consider the contentions of both sides. 7. In Para.2 of the rent control petition, the original petitioner, late husband of the additional 2nd petitioner, had pleaded that the petition schedule room is needed for conducting a tutorial college along with the other two rooms. It is admitted by both sides that there are three rooms in the building. The petition schedule room is situated in the middle. The landlord filed two separate rent control petitions against the tenants occupying the other two rooms. They had surrendered the same to the landlord. Thus, they are in the possession of the petitioner. Only when the middle room is surrendered, the landlord could conduct the tutorial college. It is in evidence that the original petitioner had possessed B.Sc. degree in Mathematics, and he was a teacher in the tutorial college. They had surrendered the same to the landlord. Thus, they are in the possession of the petitioner. Only when the middle room is surrendered, the landlord could conduct the tutorial college. It is in evidence that the original petitioner had possessed B.Sc. degree in Mathematics, and he was a teacher in the tutorial college. There is absolutely no challenge to the degree, B.Sc. B.Ed., of the 2nd petitioner wife. It is also admitted by the tenant that both the petitioners 1 and 2 had worked in Africa as teachers, and they had returned to the native place. It is further admitted by the tenant that the 2nd petitioner is working as a teacher in the Brothern English Medium School at Kumbanadu. Thus, the experience of both the petitioners in the teaching profession is established. The tenant also has contended that on return from Africa, the petitioners have got sufficient money with them. Thus, the required qualification, experience in teaching and sufficient financial soundness are with the petitioners 1 and 2 to conduct a tutorial college. 8. P.W.1 is the deceased original petitioner. During the cross examination in the court, he fainted and fell down. Subsequently he died. Therefore, the examination of P.W.1 could not be completed. There is a challenge that the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be accepted as he did not complete the cross examination. P.W.2 is the soninlow of P.W. 1 and a practising lawyer in the courts at Parhanamthitta. He is also the power of attorney holder of the 2nd petitioner for conducting this case. He is having the full knowledge about all the facts of the case. He deposed that the need urged by the petitioners are true and genuine. Even without the version of P.W. 1, the materials available on record are sufficient to infer that the need put forward by the original petitioner is bona fide. We shall now, therefore, answer whether such a need would extinguish on the death of the original petitioner and also whether his wife could pursue the said need. 9. As stated above, there is specific and clear pleadings in the petition that the need put forward by the original petitioner was to conduct a tutorial college not only by himself alone but also by his wife. 9. As stated above, there is specific and clear pleadings in the petition that the need put forward by the original petitioner was to conduct a tutorial college not only by himself alone but also by his wife. Therefore, even though the original petitioner died, wife is entitled to put forward the plea of the bona fide need and get vacant possession of the petition schedule room so that she could make use of it for conducting the tutorial college along with the two adjacent rooms. 10. In Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 623), the two judge Bench of the Apex Court laid down that the crucial date of the bona fide need is the date of the petition. The Bench Observed that. "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon a they obtain at the commencements of the lis". The Bench also observed that, "............ the court is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief". 11. Whether the need of the original landlord would survive has come up for consideration, before the Apex Court, in Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal (dead) by LRs ( AIR 1997 SC 2399 ) , while dealing with U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972). The landlord filed petition for evicting the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying out his own business. The tenant resisted the plea. The Trial Court rejected the prayer. The Appellate Authority found that the requirement of the landlord to start a cloth business in the tenanted premises is a bona fide requirement and therefore, set aside the Trial Court order. This decision was challenged before the High Court. During the pendency, the landlord died, and was substituted by his legal heirs namely his widow, two sons and married daughter. An argument was advanced that the bonafied requirement of the original landlord, which was found by the Appellate Authority, did not survive as the landlord died. This decision was challenged before the High Court. During the pendency, the landlord died, and was substituted by his legal heirs namely his widow, two sons and married daughter. An argument was advanced that the bonafied requirement of the original landlord, which was found by the Appellate Authority, did not survive as the landlord died. The Apex Court considering the facts and law held that, "The fact that the landlord needed the premises in question for starting a business which fact has been found by the Appellant Authority in the eye of law, it must be that on the day of the application for eviction which is the crucial date, the tenant incurred the liability of being evicted from the premises. Even if the landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the bona fide need cannot be said to have lapsed, as the business in question can be carried on by his widow or any elder son. 12. The subsequent event completely causing the eclipse of the bona fide need pleaded by the landlord and the necessity of the court taking cautious cognisance of such events, with rule of fairness to both sides, came up for consideration of a three judge Bench of the Apex Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders ( 1975 (1) SCC 770 ). This was a case where during the pendency of the protracted litigation for getting eviction of the building, the landlord came into possession of another shop, and therefore, it was argued that the petition of the landlord was no longer maintainable under the provisions of the A.P. Rent Control Act and the subsequent acquisition of the shop room will have to be taken into account with the pleadings of the petition. Dealing with the matter, the court observed, "Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the Trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for application of this equitable rule are myriad. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the Trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for application of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right of remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed". 13. In Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad ( 1981 (3) SCC 103 ), the three judge Bench of the Apex Court viewed on the bona fide need commencing on the date of the petition with a slight difference. The landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, a small shop, intending to open a Medical shop as he had no other reasonable suitable accommodation in the same two and also he needs the shop for reconstruction and repair which could be carried out on vacating the shop by the tenant. A question arose before the High Court whether a tenant, under a decree of eviction, could invite the court to take into consideration, the events subsequent to passing of the decree, which, if noticed, would non suit the landlord. It was seriously contended before the High Court that it was improbable for the High Court to take into consideration the subsequent events. After relying on Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu's Case, Cited supra, the court negatived the above contention. It observed that. "Therefore, it is now incontrovertible that where possessions is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. It observed that. "Therefore, it is now incontrovertible that where possessions is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlord's requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant, he cannot invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events. He can be precluded from so contending when the decree or order for eviction has become final". 14. In Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt v. Rashiklal Manilal Shah & anr ( 1997 (5) SCC 457 ), a two judge Bench of the Apex Court, referring to a legal battle between the parties, which lasted for a period of about 31 years, and which has transformed the then middle aged landlord to an advanced stage of geriatry, that he would not be in a position to start a new business at this age, however the court felt that his son who got fouranda half years more left for superannuation, could consider starting in the tenanted premises after his retirement. 15. The application of the subsequent events in respect of the bona fide need advanced by the landlord again came up for consideration in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava ( 2001 (2) SCC 604 ) before the Apex Court. That was a case where the landlord bona fide needed the building for carrying on Medical Practice for his son who passed medical examination and also for himself, a just retired Railway employee, to start a Radio repairing work shop. The disposal of the case from the lower court to the High Court took about 23 years. The Trial Court took more than three years for disposal of the Rent Control petition. The Appellate court took nearly three years for disposal. The courts had concurrent findings on bona fide need and ordered eviction. But in high Court, it took about 15 years. At the time of the disposal, the tenant sought six months time to vacate the premises which had rightly been granted by the High Court. The Appellate court took nearly three years for disposal. The courts had concurrent findings on bona fide need and ordered eviction. But in high Court, it took about 15 years. At the time of the disposal, the tenant sought six months time to vacate the premises which had rightly been granted by the High Court. In the meanwhile, the son of the landlord joined provincial Medical Service after 12 years of institution of the case and was posted at a place situated about 200Kms. from Agra where the scheduled building is situated. He was also drawing a pay of Rs. 15,000/per month, therefore, it was urged that subsequent event be considered. The Apex Court held that the said pleading cannot be accepted. The relevant portion at page 611 Para.17 is extracted below: "17. Considering all the aforesaid decisions, we are of the definite view that the subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the appellant are too insufficient to overshadow the bona fide need concurrently found by the factfinding courts". 16. In the case at hand, the wife is having the same need of her later husband for conducting a tutorial college because of her qualification, experience in teaching in Arfica and also the admitted fact that she is a teacher even now in Brothern English Medium School, Kumbanadu. It is in evidence that she is getting only Rs. 500/ to Rs. 750/ as salary, In such situation, if she opts to have a tutorial college conducted in front of her residential house, by making use of the already available two vacant rooms with that of the petition schedule room, it would obviously be more advantageous to the additional 2nd petitioner. Therefore, accepting the legal principles discussed above, we are of the view that the wife is entitled to continue the need put forward by her late husband to conduct a tutorial college in the building in which the petition schedule room is situated. 17. There is no case put forward by the tenant that the petitioners are having any other building in their possession in the same place except the two rooms on either side of the petition schedule room, vacated as per the process of the law. 18. The tenant has taken up a contention that he along with his two employees are depending for their livelihood from the income derived from the Welding business conducted by him. 18. The tenant has taken up a contention that he along with his two employees are depending for their livelihood from the income derived from the Welding business conducted by him. C.P.W. 2 is one of his employees. C.P.W. 1 is the tenant himself. They could not adduce any acceptable evidence to show the exact income available from the Welding work and also the expenses met from the income. C.P.W. 2 had deposed that no accounts are maintained in the shop. Therefore, we agree with the findings of the courts below that the tenant has failed to prove that he is mainly depending from the income derived from the Welding work conducted by him in the petition schedule room. 19. P.W. 2 has pointed out that there are number of vacant rooms available in the locality which could be used for conducting the Welding business of C.P.W 1., who admitted the availability of the said rooms. There is no independent evidence adduced by the tenant to show that the said room is occupied by the Star Bakery and not available for occupation, through clearly pointed out by P.W.2. The availability of four rooms belonging to the father of one Valliyil Santhosh, which is at a distance of about 50 feet from the scheduled room was also suggested by P.W.2. It is also brought out that there are number of room available within short distances from the petition schedule room which could be used for conducting the Welding business by the tenant. No acceptable contra evidence has been adduced by the tenant. On reappreciation of facts on record, we fully agree with the findings of the courts below. 20. Though S.11(2)(b) of the Act was one of the grounds urged by the petitioners, it was submitted during the hearing by the learned counsel for the landlords that during the pendency of the petition some amount had been paid by the tenant, and therefore, he is not seriously pressing the ground. The lower court also found that the evidence is lacking to accept the plea of arrears of rent of the landlords. Therefore, we find that there is no need to further discuss on that aspect. 21. Even though S.11(4)(ii) of the Act was urged by the landlords, no clear evidence had been adduced to establish the same. Both the courts below rejected such allegations against the tenant. Therefore, we find that there is no need to further discuss on that aspect. 21. Even though S.11(4)(ii) of the Act was urged by the landlords, no clear evidence had been adduced to establish the same. Both the courts below rejected such allegations against the tenant. We are also of the view that the dismissal of the ground under S.11(4)(ii) by the courts below is proper. 22. In view of the above discussions, we uphold the concurrent findings entered into by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, and there is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or miscarriage of justice in the appreciation of evidence by both the courts below. Thus the revision is without merit. In the result, the revision is dismissed. However, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.