ORDER : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant in a Petition filed under section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ("the Act" for brevity). 2. For the sake of clarity, the parties shall be referred to as "landlord" or "tenant", as the case may be, or as they figured in the Rent Control Petition. 3. The landlord/petitioner in his petition pleaded that his daughter, Smeara, a qualified medical practitioner, was living with him. The petition schedule shop rooms owned by him were leased out to the tenant, which is a Co-operative Society. The shop rooms are situated adjacent to the residential home of the petitioner. Smeara, being a dependant, requires the shop rooms to commence a consultation facility with a clinical laboratory, pharmacy and patients waiting room. He asserted that the need is bona fide and there are no debilitating factors which prevent him or the dependant from seeking eviction. 4. The tenant raised in his objection denied the bona fides of the landlord as well as the need projected of the dependant. They contended that the dependant, who is married and living elsewhere, would never venture to open a clinic in the premises. It was specifically contended that the daughter cannot be characterized as a dependant as she herself was in independent possession of suitable premises which could have been utilized for her need. The tenant highlighted the inconvenience that would be caused to the employees of the society if an order of eviction was passed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, necessary issues were framed by the Rent Controller and parties were permitted to let in evidence. On the side of the petitioner, the dependent daughter gave evidence as PW1 and the petitioner got himself examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on their side. The President of the respondent Society was examined as RW1. No documentary evidence was marked on their side. 6. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court found that the need of the daughter to start the clinic was bona fide. However, the authorities below concurred in their view that the daughter was not a dependant of the landlord and consequently the petition was dismissed. No documentary evidence was marked on their side. 6. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court found that the need of the daughter to start the clinic was bona fide. However, the authorities below concurred in their view that the daughter was not a dependant of the landlord and consequently the petition was dismissed. To arrive at the said conclusion, both the courts below relied on the materials brought out in evidence which revealed that PW1 owned seven shop rooms within the near vicinity. According to the courts below, the dependant ought to have filed petition to vacate her tenants instead of persuading her father to evict his tenant. 7. Against the above concurrent findings, the landlord preferred R.C.R.No.436 of 2011 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 8.4.2014 set aside the order of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority and formulated two questions for consideration. The questions formulated are: (i) whether the daughter of the landlord for whose occupation, the landlord applied under Section 11(3) of the Act, would cease to be a dependent of the landlord for the purpose of the building, if she owns other building or buildings of her own; and (ii) if it is shown that the daughter of the landlord owns other buildings and those buildings are not suitable for the purpose for which she intends to put use the petition schedule building which is the subject matter of the Rent Control Petition, whether that enables the daughter of the landlord to claim that she continues to be a dependent of the landlord for the purpose of the building. 8. After their appearance before the Rent Controller, the petition was suitably amended. It was stated that Smeara was having title over seven shop rooms on the south of Queens Road, Vatakara. The said shop rooms were occupied by tenants and the relevant lease deeds were produced. It was highlighted that the said shop rooms are unsuitable for the need of the dependant due to lack of parking facility, the commercial nature of the building, the street being busy and narrow with no parking facility, lack of toilet and water connection, small size of the shop rooms etc. The tenant, however, denied all the assertions and contended that in addition to the ground floor, the rooms in the cellar portion and the 1st floor was lying vacant. The tenant, however, denied all the assertions and contended that in addition to the ground floor, the rooms in the cellar portion and the 1st floor was lying vacant. The inconveniences pointed out by the landlord were marginal according to them and could be rectified by carrying out necessary alterations. According to them, the shop rooms in possession of the dependant were more suitable. 9. After anxiously appraising the evidence adduced, the Rent Controller answered the questions formulated by holding that the shop rooms in the possession of the dependent were not reasonably sufficient and suitable to run a consultation center as conceived by the dependant. Eviction as prayed for was consequently ordered. The Appellate Authority also took the same view after re-appreciating the evidence. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders, this revision petition is filed. 10. Heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner and Sri. B. Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 11. We have considered the submissions advanced and we have scanned through the materials to ascertain whether the authorities below have relied on irrelevant considerations or as to whether they have ignored valuable pieces of evidence or applied wrong principles of law. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, tried to impress upon us that the tenants of the dependant ought to have been proceeded against first. According to him, the inconveniences pointed out can easily be rectified by carrying out some alterations in the building. The daughter therefore cannot be regarded as a dependant. It is further submitted that the cellar and the ground floor are available with the dependant and the failure to use the said premises would be fatal to the petition. 13. We are not impressed with the said submissions. It has come out in evidence that the 7 rooms in the ground floor or the premises owned by the dependant are occupied by tenants. Exhibits A10 to A16 clearly proves this fact. We find no merit in the argument that the failure to proceed against the said tenants would be fatal. It has come out in evidence from the report of the Commissioner that the said shop rooms are small and separated by walls. Exhibits A10 to A16 clearly proves this fact. We find no merit in the argument that the failure to proceed against the said tenants would be fatal. It has come out in evidence from the report of the Commissioner that the said shop rooms are small and separated by walls. The suitability of the premises in the possession of the dependant will have to be considered with reference to the state of the building in its present state and not after effecting extensive modification as contended by the petitioner. We find that various reasons are highlighted by the landlord to zero in on the petition schedule building and nearness to the residential home is one such factor. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has evaluated all the factors to finally conclude that the shop rooms in the ground floor cannot be said to be a suitable alternative to the petition schedule premises. We find no reason to take a different view. 14. The next contention advanced by the petitioner is that the rooms in the cellar portion or in the alternative in the first floor of the building should have been put to the use. Though referring to Exhibits B1 and B2, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the shop rooms are in the ownership and title of the dependant, the counsel appearing for the dependant referring to Exhibit A 20 and 22 would contend other wise. However, we are of the view that the rooms in the cellar portion is in occupation of the tenant and the rooms in the first floor portion cannot be a viable alternative for the petition schedule shop rooms. The need projected is for starting a clinic to cater to ailing and sick people and it will be far fetched to direct the landlord to accommodate the clinic in an unsuitable area in the first floor. The courts have rightly rejected the said contention. We do not think that we would be justified in taking a different view in the given facts. 15. After having evaluated all the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any error of law. We are satisfied about the correctness, legality, regularity and propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 15. After having evaluated all the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any error of law. We are satisfied about the correctness, legality, regularity and propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. We find no reason to interfere with the same. Having regard to the aforesaid, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this stage would submit that in order to mitigate the loss sustained and also for the shifting of the business, he may be granted a breathing time and seeks for a time frame of eight months to vacate the premises. This request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 17. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the revision petitioner can be granted time till 31.12.2017, to vacate the premises, but on terms: (a) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner/tenant shall remit 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 31.12.2017. (b) The tenant shall pay charges towards use and occupation of the shop room 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 till 31.12.2017, 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.