Judgment : K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent filed R.C.P.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram against the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord contended that it runs a Madrassa. To meet the expenses of the Madrassa, Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month is required. The Madrassa Committee decided to start a textile business in the petition schedule room by annexing that room with two other rooms, so that it can be converted into a hall. It was contended by the landlord that the building is required bonafide for conducting a textile business. 3. The tenant contended that the bonafide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine. The landlord has several sources of income. It was contended that Room No.978 is in the possession of the landlord and therefore, the petition is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant also raised a contention that he is entitled to the benefits of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. At the fag end of the trial, the tenant also raised a contention that the landlord is a Wakf and therefore, Section 25 of the Act is attracted. Hence, the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable. 4. The Rent Control Court considered the oral and documentary evidence in the case and held that the need put forward by the landlord is genuine. As regards the availability of Room No.978, the Rent Control Court found that even according to the landlord, that room is also required to be annexed to the petition schedule room, in order to run the business in textiles. Therefore, it cannot be held that the first proviso to Section 11(3) is attracted in the case. 5. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant did not produce any documents to show his income. The documentary evidence produced before the Rent Control Court would reveal that vacant buildings are available in the locality, suitable for the purpose of the tenant. It is well settled that the ingredients under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act should be proved by the tenant. The documentary evidence produced before the Rent Control Court would reveal that vacant buildings are available in the locality, suitable for the purpose of the tenant. It is well settled that the ingredients under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act should be proved by the tenant. He has to prove that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and that there are no other buildings available in the locality to accommodate his business. The Rent Control Court held that the tenant failed to prove these ingredients. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court passed an order for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court. 6. The Rent Control Court also held that there is no evidence to show that the respondent (petitioner in the Rent Control Petition) is a Wakf registered under the Wakf Act. Therefore, it was held that Section 25 of the Act is not attracted. The Rent Control Petition was thus held to be maintainable. 7. The findings of the authorities below were rendered on the basis of the evidence on record. The findings are findings of fact. Normally, the revisional court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order and judgment of the authorities below. The Rent Control Revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/tenant may be granted one year's time to vacate the petition schedule room. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord submitted that only reasonable time may be granted to the tenant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner/tenant is a Goldsmith doing business in the petition schedule room, we are inclined to grant time upto 31.12.2014 to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule room. 9. Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner/tenant is a Goldsmith doing business in the petition schedule room, we are inclined to grant time upto 31.12.2014 to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule room. 9. Accordingly, the Rent Control Revision is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted time till 31.12.2014 to vacate the petition schedule room, on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule room on or before 31.12.2014 and also on condition that he shall deposit before the Rent Control Court, the entire arrears of rent. The affidavit shall be filed and the deposit of arrears of rent shall be made on or before 26.5.2014. If the tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the landlord will be entitled to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. If the tenant complies with the conditions, the execution of the order of eviction shall be kept in abeyance till 31.12.2014.