JUDGMENT : K. Harilal, J. 1. The petitioner is the landlord against whom the Rent Control Court, Chengannur passed an order, dismissing R.C.P.No.2/2002 filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for short). The said order was passed on a finding that the need, projected in the Rent Control Petition, lacks bona-fides. In appeal, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the said finding and dismissed the appeal. Thus the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below, that the need projected was not a bona-fide one, are assailed in this revision petition. 2. According to the landlord, he requires the petition schedule building to construct a residential building for his 2nd daughter, Leena George. Her husband was working abroad but now returned and now he has no avocation at all, for his livelihood. Now Leena George is depending upon him for livelihood and education of her children. So, the petitioner intends to construct a residential house on that portion of his property, where the petition schedule building is situated, after demolishing the petition schedule building, which stands in a dilapidated condition. So also, several other alternative buildings are available in the locality to shift the business from the petition schedule building. 3. The tenant resisted the said claim for eviction, contending that the need projected is a pretext for eviction only. The petition is filed with a malafide intention to rent out the shop room for higher rent, after evicting him from the petition schedule building. The petitioner's daughter and her husband were working in Gulf country, for about 15 years and they are financially in a high position. The petitioner's daughter Leena George is not at all a dependent of the petitioner and she is not in need of a residential building as she is living in her husband's house at Ananthapally in Adoor Taluk. According to him, the building is not dilapidated as alleged by him and he is entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition and the Appellate Court has confirmed the same in appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. 4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition and the Appellate Court has confirmed the same in appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Going by the order passed by the Rent Control Court, it could be seen that the courts below declined the claim for eviction, on a finding that the burden of proving the fact that the landlord's daughter, Leena George, has no residential building of her own, is on the landlord and that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner's daughter (PW3) has no other building for her residence and thereby the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof. That apart, it was also found that except the oral evidence of Pws.1 and 3, no other material is before the court to come to the finding that actually P.W.3 is a dependent of the petitioner, for her residential accommodation. Besides, the Rent Control Court had drawn an adverse inference against the daughter of the petitioner, on a finding that in the affidavit filed by her, the address shown is that of her parental house and not the address at Ananthapally, where she is presently residing. According to the courts below, the non-disclosure of the address at Ananthapally was with a malafide intention to hide her residential address at Ananthapally, so as to prevent the tenant from making any enquiry with respect to the ownership over the residential building at Ananthapally. 7. On an analysis of the averments in the Rent Control Petition, we find that the courts below have miserably failed to understand the nature of the need projected in the Rent Control Petition in its true and correct perspective. In fact, the need was that of the landlord himself and not that of the daughter, though she is the beneficiary. According to Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlord may apply for an order of eviction, for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. Thus, in law, the need is always that of the landlord, even if the dependent is the beneficiary of the need projected by the landlord. According to Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlord may apply for an order of eviction, for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. Thus, in law, the need is always that of the landlord, even if the dependent is the beneficiary of the need projected by the landlord. In above view, this Court in Mustafa Haji v. Umbichi [ 2004 (2) KLT 1110 ], held that non-examination of the dependent is not fatal to the bona-fides of the need, when the landlord was examined in evidence. 8. Let us examine the pleadings of the landlord in the Rent Control Petition. According to the landlord, he has three daughters and he has already set apart his landed property in favour of his daughters, by executing a Will. His 2nd daughter, Leena George is allotted with 3 ½ cents of property wherein the petition schedule building is situated. At the time of her marriage or thereafter, he could not give any property to her, due to his very bad circumstance and considering that aspect, he has executed a Will allotting the aforesaid property to her. Further, he intends to provide a residential accommodation to her, near his residence, by constructing a residential building in the place, where the petition schedule building is situated, after demolishing the petition schedule building and it is his duty to her, as a father, more than a bona-fide requirement. It is also averred that now she is residing with the children in her husband's house at Ananthapally in Adoor Taluk and she is suffering from financial crisis. Her husband was working abroad and now he has returned back and now he has no avocation at all. So Leena George and her family is depending upon him also for their livelihood. Leena George has neither any property nor any building of her own. 9. What we understand from the aforesaid pleadings is that the need projected is that of the landlord himself, though his daughter is the beneficiary. The landlord intends to construct a residential building in 3 ½ cents of property wherein the petition schedule building is situated, after demolishing the petition schedule building, which stands in a dilapidated condition. Even though the daughter is the beneficiary, the bona-fides of the landlord alone requires to be tested. The landlord intends to construct a residential building in 3 ½ cents of property wherein the petition schedule building is situated, after demolishing the petition schedule building, which stands in a dilapidated condition. Even though the daughter is the beneficiary, the bona-fides of the landlord alone requires to be tested. Even though the landlord has depicted the very bad living condition of his daughter, Leena George, he clearly projected the need for providing a residential house, as his duty, more than a desire, because, he could not provide any property to her at the time of her marriage. The landlord has no case that Leena George wants to construct a residential building. So also, since the allotment is made by a Will, even now the landlord himself is the owner of the property and the execution of the will was disclosed to show his bona-fides only. What he averred in the petition, as a need, is the bona-fide desire of a father and the said desire is common as far as parents are concerned, at the fag end of her life. There is nothing to disbelieve or suspect the desire of the landlord as a father, unless any kind of oblique or ulterior motive is brought out in evidence by the tenant. 10. The need of a father to accommodate his daughter in a house, to be put up, for her, by him, using his own fund, near his present residence, as her share to ancestral property, can never be deemed to be a desire without bona-fides, when neither the father nor his daughter has any other residential building in the same town or village. Similarly, if the daughter intends to come and settle down in her ancestral property near the residence of her aged father, it cannot be viewed as a desire without bona-fides, even if she has any other residential building in another town or village. So, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to prove that his daughter has no other residential building or she is craving for a residential building. Even if the daughter has residential house in another town or village, that fact is of no consequence at all, while considering the bona-fide desire of an aged father. So, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to prove that his daughter has no other residential building or she is craving for a residential building. Even if the daughter has residential house in another town or village, that fact is of no consequence at all, while considering the bona-fide desire of an aged father. Where the evidence adduced by the father as landlord is sufficient to prove the bona-fides of his need, to provide a residential house, to his daughter near his residential house, as share of her ancestral property, the daughter cannot be burdened with proof, to prove that she has no other residential building of her own, in the place of her husband, in another town or village, particularly when, neither the landlord nor his daughter has any other residential building as their own in the same town or village. 11. Therefore, we find that no burden was cast upon the landlord or the daughter to prove that the daughter has no other residential building at Ananthapally in Adoor Taluk. But the courts below have concurrently found otherwise, on a misreading of the averments in the plaint and thereby the findings of the courts below are vitiated by perversity. 12. That apart, we find that the tenant has no case in his objection that the daughter of the petitioner, for whose need the building is required, has any other residential building of her own in the same locality or at Ananthapally. So also, nothing has been brought out in evidence, to prove that Leena George has any other residential building of her own in the same locality or at Ananthapally. Therefore, we find that the need projected in the petition is a bona-fide one. 13. That apart, it appears that the courts below have drawn an adverse inference prejudicially, on a finding that the address shown in the affidavit is that of her parental house and not the address of her residence at Ananthappally. What is shown is the address of her parental house, where she was born and brought up. So also it is the address of the petitioner, her father, in the petition. She was not a party in the Rent Control Petition and she was examined in evidence, as the witness of the petitioner. What is shown is the address of her parental house, where she was born and brought up. So also it is the address of the petitioner, her father, in the petition. She was not a party in the Rent Control Petition and she was examined in evidence, as the witness of the petitioner. In the above circumstance, we are of the opinion that the address of the parental house was shown willfully or mistakenly or carelessly. The courts below should not have drawn an adverse inference prejudicially, when it was not supported by any corroborating evidence. We are of the opinion that adverse inferences can never be drawn against parties on mere assumption, unless the same is corroborated by any evidence. Adverse inferences must always be well founded. In the above context, the maxim that “Ex Debito Justitiae Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit”, i.e., 'an act of the Court shall prejudice no one' assumes significance and relevancy. 14. In short, the concurrent findings of the courts below on the question of bona-fides of the need are based on mere assumptions, which lacks basis and thereby they are vitiated by perversity. We find that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition is a bona-fide need only and there is no reason to doubt it. In the instant case, the tenant has no case that either the landlord or his daughter has another residential building in the same village or town. Therefore, no enquiry need be conducted under the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and we find that the Rent Control Petition is not hit by the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 15. Consequently, the impugned order and the judgment passed by the courts below will stand set aside and the Rent Control Petition is remitted back to the Rent Control Court for considering the protection under the 2nd proviso only under Section 11(3) of the Act. Needless to say, if the tenant is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, certainly, the landlord will be entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 16. The Rent Control Court shall pass order afresh, after considering the entitlement of protection of the tenant under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The parties shall appear before the Rent Control Court on 13.10.2017. 16. The Rent Control Court shall pass order afresh, after considering the entitlement of protection of the tenant under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The parties shall appear before the Rent Control Court on 13.10.2017. The Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above.