ORDER : 1. Revision petitioner is the tenant. He challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2008 upholding the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Thrissur in R.C.P. No. 84 of 2005. By the said order, the petitioner suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 2. The landlords, who are son and wife of late Puthenveetil Abdul Hameed are the owners of the petition schedule shop room. The said shop room is having a plinth area of 150 Sq. feet. The tenant was occupying the premises by paying a monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. The landlords are doing business in plastic utensils at Jai Hind Market, Thrissur, which shop room is situated some distance away from the petition schedule shop room. The need projected was that the room was required for the purpose of using it as a godown for stocking his goods. According to him, he was not having in his possession any other shop room suited for the purpose. It was also contended that rent was in arrears from January, 2004 and though legal notice was sent on 25.1.2005 and the same was accepted, the tenant has not discharged the dues. 3. The tenant challenged the claim of the landlords by raising various contentions. The bona fides of the landlords were called in question. According to the tenant, the schedule shop room was unsuitable for the use of the landlords. The landlords could very well use the shop room in their possession or a portion of the residential home for using it as a godown was essentially the contention advanced. The non-existence of other shop rooms in the vicinity was highlighted to reject the claim of the landlords. It is also pleaded that the income from the business conducted in the shop room was the main source of his livelihood. 4. The 1st respondent was examined as PW-1. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The tenant entered the box and gave evidence as RW1. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on his side. The Rent Controller, by the impugned order, upheld the claim of the landlords and ordered eviction. 5. Against the order of eviction, the tenant preferred appeal as R.C.A. No. 5 of 2008 before the Appellate Authority. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The tenant entered the box and gave evidence as RW1. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on his side. The Rent Controller, by the impugned order, upheld the claim of the landlords and ordered eviction. 5. Against the order of eviction, the tenant preferred appeal as R.C.A. No. 5 of 2008 before the Appellate Authority. It was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority that the landlords had come into possession of another building having Door No. XI/67 during the pendency of the proceedings. Taking note of this subsequent event, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act. 6. The said matter was taken up in revision by the landlords. This Court by order dated 20.7.2011 in R.C.R. No. 214 of 2011 remanded the matter back with a direction to consider the question as to why the landlords did not occupy the building which came into their possession for accomplishing the need projected in the Rent Control Petition. The parties were permitted to let in further evidence. 7. Pursuant to the remand order, a Commissioner was appointed to conduct local inspection. Ext.C1 report was submitted. PW-1 & RW1 were recalled and re-examined. The Commissioner Advocate was examined as PW-2. The appellate authority after evaluating the evidence afresh came to the conclusion that the petition schedule shop room was more suited to the needs of the landlords and held that the claim was bona fide and ordered eviction. The said order was taken up in revision by the tenant and by order dated 23.9.2013 in R.C.R. No. 152 of 2012, this Court taking note of the submission of the tenant that the evidence as regards the unsuitability of door No. XI/67 was not properly probed, remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. Parties were permitted to adduce further evidence. 8. Pursuant to the second order of remand, the matter was considered afresh by the Appellate Authority and by the impugned order, it was held that the landlords were able to successfully prove their bona fide need of the petition schedule building. It was further held that the landlords were able to establish special reasons. It is against the above order that the tenant has come up in revision. 9. It was further held that the landlords were able to establish special reasons. It is against the above order that the tenant has come up in revision. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant that the landlords had no consistent case . In view of the established fact that they had obtained vacant possession of Room No. XI/67, during the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act would apply. This, according to the learned counsel, would extinguish the right of the landlords to secure eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. It was further argued that the Commissioner's report clearly revealed that the Room No. XI/67 was much larger and situated in a more prominent place facing the public road. If there was any bona fides in the claim of the landlords, they would have readily occupied the premises which came into their possession instead of insisting for vacant possession of the tenanted premises, is the submission. It is further urged by the learned counsel that though this Court at the time of remand in R.C.R. No. 152 of 2012 had directed the court below to ascertain the suitability or otherwise of the room namely Door No. XI/67 to be used as a godown and also as to the special reasons as to why the landlords were not inclined to occupy the said premises, no such endeavour was made by the lower appellate court. It is finally submitted that the landlords have not made out any special reason for not occupying the premises which came into their possession during the pendency of the rent control petition and on that sole ground itself the claim of bona fides will stand shattered. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would refute the submissions advanced and would contend that it is the consistent case of the landlords that they required the petition schedule shop room for the purpose of using it as a godown. The said shop room is ideally suited for the needs of the landlords and according to the learned counsel, it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which premises that the landlords should occupy. The said shop room is ideally suited for the needs of the landlords and according to the learned counsel, it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which premises that the landlords should occupy. It is further urged that the shop room bearing Room No. XI/67 is situated facing the Post Office road whereas the petition schedule premises is situated on its back side facing the eastern pocket road. According to the learned counsel, the area of the premises, its location, the need to which it is being put to and the accessibility were considered by the court below. Based on the above materials, the court below had held that special reasons have been made out by the landlords. This finding cannot be found fault with and in that view of the matter, the interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is unwarranted is the essence of the submission advanced. 12. An evaluation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence would reveal that the specific case of the landlords was that they require the petition schedule building for using it as a godown. It has come out in evidence that the 1st respondent is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of plastic articles. The main business establishment is situated about 2 kms away from the petition schedule shop room. The contention of the tenant initially was that the petition schedule shop room was not suited for this purpose and that the landlords were having other premises in their possession. These contentions were repelled by the Rent Controller and eviction was ordered. However, during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority, the shop room bearing XI/67 became vacant and according to the tenant, instead of occupying the same, the said shop room was leased out to ABC Enterprises. According to the tenant, the shop room bearing XI/67 was better suited for the need of the landlords. Though the landlords contend that the vacant possession of the shop room bearing XI/67 never came into their possession, evidence revealed that the earlier tenant had vacated the premises during the pendency of the proceedings and another tenant was inducted. 13. According to the tenant, the shop room bearing XI/67 was better suited for the need of the landlords. Though the landlords contend that the vacant possession of the shop room bearing XI/67 never came into their possession, evidence revealed that the earlier tenant had vacated the premises during the pendency of the proceedings and another tenant was inducted. 13. The first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act puts an embargo on the Rent Control Court to grant vacant possession to the landlords on the ground of bona fide need if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case, it will be just and proper to do so. The burden of proving special reason is on the landlord. The scope of the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was considered by this Court in Kunju T.P. vs. Fathima and Others, 2014 (3) KLT 563 , wherein it was held as follows: "10.................The scope of the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act, in the circumstances, is to be understood in the context of the provision in S.11(3) of the Act. S.11(3) of the Act, confers authority on the Rent Control Court to pass an order, directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if he bona-fide needs the building for his occupation and the proviso carves out an exception to the authority of the Rent Control Court to order eviction, when the landlord has another building of his own in his possession and there are no special reasons for not occupying the same for the proposed need. A combined reading of the provision and the proviso would indicate beyond doubt that it is only when it is established that the landlord has another building of his own in his possession for his occupation for the proposed need, he need satisfy the Rent Control Court the special reasons for not occupying the said premises. In other words, to non - suit the landlord, the vacant building should be of such a character, which would meet the requirements of the landlord. Any other interpretation of the proviso would lead to absurdity and cannot be accepted." 14. In other words, to non - suit the landlord, the vacant building should be of such a character, which would meet the requirements of the landlord. Any other interpretation of the proviso would lead to absurdity and cannot be accepted." 14. The question is therefore whether the shop room bearing No. XI/67 would have met the requirement of the landlords. It has come in evidence that the petition schedule premises is having an area of about 125 sq. ft. and the shop room bearing No. XI/67, which was allegedly vacated during the pendency of the proceedings is admittedly having an area of more than 500 sq. ft. The shop room bearing No. XI/67 is facing the Post Office Road which is a busy road, having traffic restrictions whereas the petition schedule shop room is facing the eastern pocket road. It has come out in evidence that the petition schedule shop room can be accessed only by three wheelers and smaller vehicles. The northern public road, on the other hand, is a busy thoroughfare and it is borne out from the evidence that it will be difficult to stop vehicles in front of the shop room for loading and unloading items. Further, it has come out in evidence from Ext.A7 rent receipt that the rent that the landlords get from shop room No. XI/67 is Rs. 26,000/-. Admittedly, for the petition schedule premises, the rent which is being paid by the tenant is Rs. 550/- per mensem. Nothing more is required to highlight the comparative importance of these two shop rooms. It would be unreasonable to suggest to the landlords that they should house their godown in the shop room bearing No. XI/67 when they do not require such extensive space, that too in a prominent location, for stocking their products. It would also be unreasonable to demand that the landlords should forgo the rent of Rs. 26,000/- so as to enable the tenant to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises by paying a monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. As pleaded by the landlord all that the landlords require is a small godown space to store plastic utensils. 15. As held by the Apex Court in G.C. Kapoor vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin and Others, 2002 (1) SCC 610 , the crucial date for determination of bona fides of the need is the date of filing of the eviction petition. As pleaded by the landlord all that the landlords require is a small godown space to store plastic utensils. 15. As held by the Apex Court in G.C. Kapoor vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin and Others, 2002 (1) SCC 610 , the crucial date for determination of bona fides of the need is the date of filing of the eviction petition. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram, 1992 (2) SCC 623, is an authority for the proposition that the normal rule in any litigation is that the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced and the only exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in Valsan vs. Furtal, 2004 (3) KLT 1046 when confronted with an identical situation had occasion to observe as follows: Landlord might have rented out several premises to different tenants but he has always the option to seek eviction of a premises which is convenient for him for the purpose for which eviction has been sought for. Option has to be exercised by the landlord exclusively for which tenants have no role. Several factors would go into the mind of the landlord while exercising the option against whom the Rent Control Petition has to be filed when there is more than one tenant. Factors like rent received from the particular tenant, convenience, relationship and so on may influence the landlord while exercising his option. After having decided to file Rent Control Petition against tenant A, tenant B vacates, it will be for the landlord to decide whether he should occupy the vacant premises. The landlord after having made a preference cannot be forced to occupy the premises B which became available subsequently unless the tenant's need is wholly satisfied which is essentially a question of fact. In a given case the landlord can rent out even the premises which came into his possession during the pendency of the rent control proceedings for a better rent. No duty is cast on the landlord to keep the premises idle, and discontinue the rent control proceedings. In a given case the landlord can rent out even the premises which came into his possession during the pendency of the rent control proceedings for a better rent. No duty is cast on the landlord to keep the premises idle, and discontinue the rent control proceedings. Landlord can always proceed with the rent control proceedings having taken a decision to proceed against A rather than B. Special reasons may exist not only when he exercised his option but also when he got the vacant possession of a premises. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Savithri Sahay vs. Sachidanand Prasad, 2002 (8) SCC 765 . In a recent decision in Pratap Rai Tanwani vs. Uttam Chand, 2004 (7) SCALE 631 , the Apex Court has reiterated that the crucial date for considering the bona fide need is the date of filing of the Rent Control Petition. Only in cases where the Court is satisfied that subsequent events have wholly satisfied the requirement of the landlord it could reject the plea of the landlord under S.11(3) of the Act. 17. This Court in Dr. Venugopalan Nair P. vs. Mohamedkunhi and Others, 2010 (1) KLT 971 had occasion to observe that the Rent Control Court is not expected to sit in judgment over the wisdom of landlord to identify one among his various tenanted rooms for conducting the proposed business. The rule or power of pick and choose, conceded to the landlord when a landlord has several tenants, has received recognition in rent control jurisprudence. Unless it can be said that it is with an oblique motive that landlord has chosen the tenant who is sought to be evicted for action in preference to the other tenants it is not for the authorities under statute to intervene. In other words, the landlord is the sole arbiter of his own requirement and the suitability of the building is the prerogative of the landlord. 18. In S.S. Gupta vs. Mahesh C. Gupta, 1999 (6) SCC 222 , the Apex Court had held as follows: "13.................Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord or satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against." 19. It was after considering all these relevant aspects that the Appellate Authority, which is the final fact finding authority, has held that the landlords have made out special reasons for not occupying the shop room bearing No. XI/67. The said finding was arrived at on the basis of a proper and legal appreciation of facts and law. The law does not command the landlord to make his choice at the dictates of the tenant to protect his occupancy. We find no jurisdictional error in the findings of the court below. It cannot be said that the order suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 20. Coming to the second proviso to Section 11(3), the burden to establish both the ingredients, which are conjunctive, is on the tenant. In order to prove the first limb, the tenant produced Ext.B1 handwritten accounts. The court below on an evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that Exts.B1 to B5 lacks authenticity. Insofar as the second limb is concerned, the tenant in his evidence had stated in unequivocal terms that he did not make any enquiry regarding the vacant shop rooms which were available in the locality. He went on to state that there are other rooms in the locality for conducting the business, which is transacted from the petition schedule shop room. The benefit of the said proviso was not extended to the tenant and we do not find any reason to take a divergent view. 21. After having given out anxious consideration to the manner in which the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have marshalled the evidence and have appreciated the various aspects of the case, it appears to us that no interference is warranted in exercise of the rarefied revisional jurisdiction. 21. After having given out anxious consideration to the manner in which the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have marshalled the evidence and have appreciated the various aspects of the case, it appears to us that no interference is warranted in exercise of the rarefied revisional jurisdiction. It does not appear that the courts below have relied on irrelevant considerations or have ignored relevant materials nor can it be said that they have applied wrong principles of law. It is trite that the findings on fact and appreciation of evidence should not and cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the same is perverse and opposed to all tenets of law. 22. Having regard to the aforesaid, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for a breathing time to vacate the petition schedule shop room. This request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 24. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the revision petitioner can be granted time till 1.10.2017, to vacate the premises, but on terms: (a) Within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner/tenant shall deposit the entire arrears, if any, as on date and shall also file an affidavit before the executing court unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the respondents/ landlords on or before 3.11.2017. (b) The tenant shall pay charges towards use and occupation of the shop rooms at the current rent rate from today till the vacant possession of the premises is granted to the respondents/landlords. (c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight months, i.e. till 3.11.2017, if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. (d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clauses (a) and (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as per this order will stand recalled and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.