ORDER. 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. THE APPELLANT FILED A PETITION FOR EVICTION UNDER SECTION 11(3) OF THE KERALA BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1965 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT") ON HE GROUND OF BONA FIDE NEED WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE RENT CONTROLLER. THEREAFTER, WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP IN APPEAL, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE RENT CONTROLLER. ON REMAND, THE RENT CONTROLLER PASSED THE ORDER OF EVICTION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL. THEREAFTER, THE MATTER WAS TAKEN TO THE HIGH COURT IN A REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROLLER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN, SET ASIDE. HENCE, THIS E APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE. 3. THE MAIN GROUND WHICH WEIGHED WITH THE HIGH COURT IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF EVICTION WAS THAT THE LANDLORD HAD ANOTHER HOUSE WHICH. HE SOLD UNDER THE SALE DEED (EXT. B-1) DURING PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION, ALONG WITH THE OTHER CO-OWNER. THE LANDLORD IN HIS EVIDENCE HAS STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BUILDING WHICH WAS SOLD UNDER THE SALE DEED (EXT. B-1) WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANT. THE DEFENDANT IN HIS EVIDENCE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE SAID BUILDING WAS IN OCCUPATION OF THE TENANT. THE AFORESAID ADMISSION BY THE TENANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SALE DEED (EXT. B-1) IT WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE TRANSFEROR THAT THERE WAS ANY TENANT. IN THE BUILDING. THIS BEING THE POSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR EVICTION. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER RENDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDERS OF EVICTION PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROLLER AND UPHELD IN APPEAL BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE RESTORED. THE RESPONDENT IS GRANTED TIME TILL 30-6-2006 TO VACATE THE PREMISES IN QUESTION UPON FILING USUAL UNDERTAKING WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. 5. NO COSTS.