ORDER : K. HARILAL, J. 1. The petitioner is the tenant who faced eviction proceedings under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(1) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965 in R.C.P No.8/2011 of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode filed by the respondents/land ladies. After considering the evidence on record the trial court dismissed the petition finding that the bona fide need projected under Section 11(3) is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3). The prayer for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and sub lease was also rejected. 2. Aggrieved by the above findings the petitioners have preferred R.C.A. No.66/2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority after re appreciating the evidence of record reversed the findings on Secs 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the Act, mainly on the reasons that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners have their own vacant rooms in their possession and that the remittance of the arrears of rent during the pendency of the rent control petition cannot be taken as a ground to reject the petition under Section 11(2)(b); but confirmed the findings under Section 11 (4)(1) of the Act. Thus, now the rent control petition stands allowed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The legality and propriety of the divergent findings are assailed in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Admittedly arrears of rent with interest at the rate of 6% and postal charges were not remitted within 15 days from the receipt of notice issued under Section 11(2)(b). But the respondent has deposited arrears of rent during the pendency of the Rent Control proceedings only and the Rent Control Court rejected the claim of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) on that deposit. 5. In the above context, the question to be considered is whether the Rent Control Court is justified in rejecting the claim for eviction under Section 11(2)(b), on deposit of arrears of rent, during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition. Non payment of rent, as per contract and statutory provisions, entitles the land lord to seek possession, after sending registered notice to the tenant intimating the default. Non payment of rent, as per contract and statutory provisions, entitles the land lord to seek possession, after sending registered notice to the tenant intimating the default. According to the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, if the tenant fails to pay or tender rent together with interest at six percent per annum and postal charges incurred in sending notice within fifteen days of the receipt of notice or refusal thereof, the said non payment makes the landlord entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. There is no provision for depositing rent alone during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition to get over the order of eviction to be passed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. 6. This Court is of the view that payment or deposit of arrears of rent during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition cannot be a ground to reject the claim of eviction under Section 11(2)(b); but it can be considered and adjusted while considering an application filed under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. In other words, the Rent Control Court went wrong by rejecting the claim of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) on deposit of arrears of rent during the pendency of the Rent Control petition. Needless to say, order passed under Section 11(2)(b) can be vacated under Section 11 (2)(c)on deposit of arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings, within one month or with the further period allowed by the Court. In the above analysis, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is justified in reversing the findings whereby the Rent Control Court rejected the claim of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. 7. Going by the impugned judgment, it is seen that the Rent Control Court has found that the need put forth by the petitioners is bona fide and genuine; but subsequently, found that the bona fide need is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is discernible that the Rent Control Court arrived at such a finding merely for the reason that in Exhibit C1 report the Commissioner reported that at the time of his local inspection, 5 rooms were found locked, which comprised of one room in the ground floor, two rooms each in the first floor and 2nd floor. It is discernible that the Rent Control Court arrived at such a finding merely for the reason that in Exhibit C1 report the Commissioner reported that at the time of his local inspection, 5 rooms were found locked, which comprised of one room in the ground floor, two rooms each in the first floor and 2nd floor. This court is of the opinion that merely on the reason that those rooms were found closed, it cannot be presumed that those rooms were lying vacant. RW1, in his cross-examination, admitted that none of the rooms were lying vacant at the time of filing the petition. Further, he added, no room was lying vacant at the time of his examination in court. 8. As regards the first proviso to Section 11(3) is concerned the burden is heavy on the tenant to prove that the landlord has buildings of his own in his possession and that buildings or rooms are vacant and suitable for the need projected in the petition. If the tenant succeeds in discharging the initial burden, the burden will shift to the landlord to establish the special reasons for not occupying the other vacant rooms in his possession. In the instant case, the respondent/tenant has not succeeded in proving that vacant rooms were there in the possession of the petitioner. So, the court below is justified in finding that the need is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 9. As regards the second proviso, the courts below concurrently arrived at a finding that no positive evidence has been adduced by the respondent to discharge the burden of proof under the second proviso. The respondent himself admitted that he has not made any enquiry as to availability of alternative vacant rooms. So, the courts below are justified in rejecting the protection under the second proviso also. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in any of the finding of the courts below. Hence this revision is dismissed. At last the learned Counsel for the respondent urged for granting some time to vacate the tenanted premises. So, the courts below are justified in rejecting the protection under the second proviso also. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in any of the finding of the courts below. Hence this revision is dismissed. At last the learned Counsel for the respondent urged for granting some time to vacate the tenanted premises. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant a reasonable time, on the following conditions: (1)Respondent/Petitioner is given six months time to vacate the plaint schedule shop room on condition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, expressing an undertaking to vacate the plaint schedule premises within six months. (2) He shall deposit the entire arrear of rent within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and continue to pay rent without any default. In the event of failure to comply any of the conditions stated above, the time granted to vacate the plaint schedule shop will stand vacated and the petitioner will be at liberty to proceed with the execution proceedings.