Judgment : Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This revision petition under sec.20 of Act 2 of 1965 is filed by the tenant against whom order of eviction has been concurrently passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It was submitted by Sri C. Khalid, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that the entire arrears of rent as found by the authorities below have been paid. Mr. Pavithran, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that there is some short fall. We do not propose to settle the controversy as to whether the arrears of rent has been paid. After all, orders of eviction passed under sec.11(2)(b) are tentative orders which are liable to be vacated upon the tenant depositing the arrears of rent. While confirming the order under sec.11(2)(b), we grant one month time from today to the revision petitioner for paying or making deposit of the arrears of rent and also for filing an application under sec.11(2)(c) of the Rent Control Act. 4. The substantive ground on which eviction order is passed is the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The need projected was the need of Hariraman, the 5th respondent herein (5th petitioner in the RCP) to occupy the building for his residential purposes. Though several grounds have been raised in the RCR, Mr. Khalid would give emphasis only to the point that the RCP is liable to fail in view of the first proviso of sub-sec.(3) of sec.11. It was submitted that Sri Hariraman, the de facto claimant, is having ownership and possession of building having door No.9/395A of Thalassery Municipality; in view of the landlord possessing his own building, eviction order could not be passed. Learned counsel would submit that certified copy of the property tax assessment register pertaining to the building having door No.9/395A was produced before the Appellate Authority along with I.A.No.1761/1998. The said IA was filed invoking the powers under Order 41 Rule 27 as well as under sec.18. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority considered the IA only through the perspectives of Rule 27 of Order 41. The IA was dismissed blaming the tenant for not having been vigilant in producing the document before the rent control court itself. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority considered the IA only through the perspectives of Rule 27 of Order 41. The IA was dismissed blaming the tenant for not having been vigilant in producing the document before the rent control court itself. Learned counsel drew our attention to secs.18(3) and 23 of Act 2/1965 as well as Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules. The learned counsel submitted that the power of the rent control court and the appellate authority to hold enquiry and to permit adduction of evidence is co-terminus with each other. The Appellate Authority was therefore not at all justified in dismissing the IA on technical reasons. 5. Mr. Pavithran, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the decision of the authorities below. He submitted that the first proviso to sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 cannot have any application to this case since the construction of building having door No.9/395A is a subsequent event. Hariraman did not have possession of that building at the time when the RCP was filed. The RCP was filed way back in 1993 and despite lapse of several years after the statutory time frame of 4 months, the RCP was not disposed of. The 5th petitioner who was in dire need of a building for his own occupation became frustrated and went in for putting up another building. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found on legal evidence which was available on record before those authorities that the need to occupy the petition schedule building is a genuine one. There is no warrant for interfering with that finding. Learned counsel submitted that the 5th petitioner will certainly occupy the petition schedule building once eviction is obtained for three years or even five years since the need to occupy that building has always been a genuine one and it survives. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (AIR 2001 SC 803). and submit that all cases have to be decided on the basis of the state of affairs obtaining as on the commencement of the lease. In the instant case, the situation of the landlord being compelled to put up a new house is a situation of the tenant's making and the tenant cannot be permitted to take advantage of that situation. 6. In the instant case, the situation of the landlord being compelled to put up a new house is a situation of the tenant's making and the tenant cannot be permitted to take advantage of that situation. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We are not impressed by the decision of the learned Appellate Authority to dismiss IA 1761/1998. The learned Subordinate Judge considered that IA only in the context of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. As rightly argued by Mr. Khalid, the power of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court to permit adduction of evidence and hold enquiries are co-terminus. Whatever power the Rent Control Court has to receive evidence, the Appellate Authority also has. The document produced before the Appellate Authority was the certified copy of the assessment register maintained by the local authority in respect of the building having door No.9/395A. A reading of sec.26 of the Rent Control Act will show that such documents are allowed considerable probative value in proceedings under the Rent Control Act. It is stated in the section that such documents shall be received as evidence of facts recorded therein. Thus the appellate authority was bound to receive the certified copy of the property tax assessment register pertaining to the building having door No.9/395A as an item of evidence in the case. 7. The question whether the landlord (5th respondent) putting up a new building during the pendency of the RCP in view of the long delay which was noticed in the disposal of the RCP, will eclipse the need, is a question to be gone into and decided. We find considerable merit in the submissions of Mr.Pavithran based as they are on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (AIR 2001 SC 803). The situation of the landlord becoming compelled to put up a new building, perhaps, is indicative of the extreme genuineness of the need projected by the landlord. We are not inclined to take a final decision on the issue since we do not have any evidence and much less any affidavit by the landlord stating that he will occupy the petition schedule building once he gets possession of the same despite his present occupation of his own building having door No.9/395A. The eviction order passed under sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 is qualified by sub-sec.(12) of sec.11. The eviction order passed under sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 is qualified by sub-sec.(12) of sec.11. If the landlord does not occupy the building which he has obtained possession on the basis of the eviction order passed under sec.11 (3), he will be visited with the consequences of sub-sec.(12) of sec.11. We feel having regard to the totality of the circumstances attending on this case, that the issue should be reconsidered by the appellate authority subject to the following directions. The result therefore is that the judgment of the rent control court and the appellate authority as well as the order in IA 1761/1998 are set aside. The appeal RCA 92/1998 is remanded to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to receive as evidence certified copy of the property tax assessment register relating to the building having door No.9/395A. If the landlord files an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he put up the new building and undertaking to occupy the petition schedule building upon getting eviction for a reasonably long period of time, that affidavit also shall be received as evidence in the appeal. The appellate authority will take a fresh decision after hearing both sides taking into account the property tax assessment register as well as the affidavit to be filed by the appellant. Needless to mention that the principles of law as emerging from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (AIR 2001 SC 803) will be kept in mind by the learned appellate authority. The parties will appear before the rent control appellate authority on 22.7.2009. Being a very old matter, the appellate authority will give top priority to the RCA and take fresh decision at the earliest and, at any rate, within one month of the parties entering appearance.