Judgment: Pius. C. Kuriakose, J. Strenuous and persuasive submissions of Sri.Saneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner notwithstanding, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity tainting the orders concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority declining eviction on the ground under Section 11(3). As rightly noticed by the rent control court and the appellate authority, the pleaded case was that PW1- the landlord needs the building for occupation by PW2, the son- defacto claimant and that the studies of PW2, the son had come to an end and that he was going about in search of an avocation. As noticed by the authorities below, the fathers evidence was to the effect that the son was doing his first year degree while the son would swear that he never joined for degree course in the college. When bonafides of a claim and need under Section 11(2) is sought to be established by adduction of oral evidence, it is the credibility of the witnesses which matters. The rent control court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses- father and the son and record their testimonies felt that PW2 the defacto claimant was examined in the teeth of the truth that was spoken to by PW1. The appellate authority on a re-appreciation of the evidence also concurred with the rent control court. We do not find any warrant for interference under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We confirm the orders passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority and dismiss the revision petition. But we make it clear that those orders and our judgment confirming them will not stand in the way of the petitioner/landlord from filing application for eviction on the ground under Section 11(3) or any other available ground on the basis of the circumstances which obtain now. In other words, the bar of Section 15 will not prevent the petitioner/landlord from filing fresh rent control petition. We are informed that the order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority has now been got vacated by making requisite deposits and filing necessary application under Section 11(2)(c). But the learned counsel for the revision petitioner complains that the respondent/tenant had not discharged the rent which fell due subsequent to the filing of the rent control appeal. We are informed that the order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority has now been got vacated by making requisite deposits and filing necessary application under Section 11(2)(c). But the learned counsel for the revision petitioner complains that the respondent/tenant had not discharged the rent which fell due subsequent to the filing of the rent control appeal. Considering the above submission of the learned counsel, even as we dismiss the revision petition, we direct the respondent to pay the entire rent which fell due in respect of the petition schedule building after the institution of the rent control appeal less any amount already paid to the revision petitioner either directly or through his counsel in this court within one month from today.