ORDER 1. The revision petitioners are the tenants, who are confronted with an order of eviction passed diversely under Section 11(3) and concurrently under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the courts below. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid divergent and concurrent findings are assailed in these Rent Control Revisions. 2. The questions to be considered in these Revisions are given below:- i. Can an order of eviction be granted under Sec.11(3) of the Act, on the bona fide need of the landlord, in anticipation of a prospective need, reasonably and likely to arise in future? Should the bona fide need be a current or urgent one? ii. Whether the desire of a Non Resident Indian, who is employed abroad under the threat of termination or who was employed abroad for a long time and had spent considerable time in his life there, to join with his family and seek an avocation for livelihood in his native place, by doing business in the tenanted building, can be taken as a mere whimsical or fanciful or insincere desire, without bona fides? iii. Whether the absence of due diligence in conducting the Rent Control Petition or inordinate delay in filing the Rent Control Petition, after issuing notice, demanding vacant possession of the tenanted building, can be considered as proven facts, evidencing lack of bona fides, while determining the Rent Control Petition finally, after trial? iv. Whether any further enquiry to the proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) or bona fides under Section 11 (10) of the Act is required, if the claim for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act for own occupation is ordered, where the bona fide need for own occupation under Sec. 11(3) of the Act is coupled with reconstruction under Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the act, after evicting the tenant? 3. The respondent/landlord has been working abroad in an oil rig and he was at the verge of dismissal and he was employed there for a long time. He has three tender aged children and they require his love and affection. Their education and character have to be developed at this stage under his guidance, according to him.. 3. The respondent/landlord has been working abroad in an oil rig and he was at the verge of dismissal and he was employed there for a long time. He has three tender aged children and they require his love and affection. Their education and character have to be developed at this stage under his guidance, according to him.. He wants to join with his family, at the earliest, and seek a new avocation, in his native place, for livelihood of his family, by doing a business in the tenanted buildings, after getting vacant possession and reconstruction. Thus, he bona fide needs the petition schedule buildings, to start a provision store. So also, the petition schedule buildings require reconstruction as they are very old and dilapidated at the time of purchase itself. 4. The revision petitioners/tenants resisted both claims and contended that the bona fide need is a ruse for eviction, as he is still working abroad. The need is not a bona fide one as it is not current or urgent. Suitable buildings are not available in the locality to shift their business and they are mainly depending upon the income derived from the business in the petition schedule buildings. The buildings are not so old or dilapidated and do not require reconstruction, as claimed by the landlord. 5. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Act, on the finding that the need put forward is not a bona fide one, as he is still working abroad and it is not a current or urgent; but, prospective need only. An order of eviction cannot be granted for a prospective need. Secondly, it was found that there was an inordinate delay in filing the Rent Control Petition, after issuing a notice to the tenants demanding vacant possession of the tenanted buildings. Similarly, the Rent Control Petition was prosecuting without due diligence, as the same was dismissed twice on default and later restored on the files. Thus, the previous conduct would show the lack of bona fides. However, the Rent Control Court further found that the tenants are not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act, as they failed to discharge the burden of proof. But, the buildings require reconstruction as claimed by the landlord. Thus, the previous conduct would show the lack of bona fides. However, the Rent Control Court further found that the tenants are not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act, as they failed to discharge the burden of proof. But, the buildings require reconstruction as claimed by the landlord. On the above premises, the Rent Control Court granted the order of eviction under Sec.11(4)(iv) of the Act only and rejected the eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Act. But, in Appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the aforesaid findings under Sec.11(3) and concurred with the findings under Sec.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Thus, eviction was allowed under Sec.11(3) and confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court under Sec.11 (4)(iv) of the Act. 6. Heard Sri. R.D. Shenoy, the learned senior counsel for the tenants and Sri. Neelakandan Namboodiri, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the tenants advanced arguments, in support of the findings of the Rent Control Court, and the learned counsel for the landlord argued conversely, in support of the findings of the Appellate Authority. 8. Coming to the first question, let us have a look at the judicial precedents. In Madhavan v. Ramachandran, 1970 (2) ILR Ker. 101, V.R. Krishna Iyer. J., as he then was, in his unique style, held that knowing that between the institution of the petition and the ultimate order from the Apex Court years pass, it will be as good as repealing the provision for eviction on the ground of bona fide need, if courts insist on the landlords proving a present need as against a prospective but certain need. Proceedings in court should not become tantalising tricks. Cannot the Rent Control Court take note of this subsequent event and give relief. It is not necessary that there should be a current, urgent need. It is enough if it is reasonably and likely to arise in near future. There is a discretion vested in the court to depart from the general rule that the rights of the parties must be determined as on the date of the institution of the action in justifiable circumstances, provided such departure will not cause injustice. 9. In Secretary, Thevara Co-op: Consumer Stores Ltd., v. 10. In Kunhamma v. 11. There is a discretion vested in the court to depart from the general rule that the rights of the parties must be determined as on the date of the institution of the action in justifiable circumstances, provided such departure will not cause injustice. 9. In Secretary, Thevara Co-op: Consumer Stores Ltd., v. 10. In Kunhamma v. 11. In the light of the above decisions, it can be concluded that an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Act can be granted in anticipation of a bona fide need reasonably and likely to arise in future. In other words, bona fide need need not be current or urgent and it can be a prospective one also. 12. Secondly, it is the case of the landlord that he is working abroad and he is at the verge of dismissal from his employment there. His family is in India and the children are studying in various classes. They need his love, affection and protection. He is also desirous of living along with them and seeking a new avocation for livelihood. Can the aforesaid desire of a Non Resident Indian working abroad be taken as a ruse for eviction? 13. It is a matter of fact that generally, an employment abroad, particularly in Gulf, is always under the shadow of insecurity. When he is at the threat of termination abruptly, he may be apprehensive of his future, after returning to India. Such apprehension must be too much painful, if his children are at tender age and students. Similarly, a Non Resident Indian, who had spent a considerable time abroad, in his life, may be desirous of living along with his family and seeking a new avocation for livelihood in his place of residence. Such a desire cannot be said to be whimsical or fanciful. If a landlord wishes to live comfortably along with his wife and children in his native place, by doing some business in the tenanted building, neither the tenant nor the court can compel him to squeeze himself and continue there. In such circumstances, a landlord, who had let out his shop room to others for rent, may be in need of occupying the building, after evicting the tenants, to start a new avocation. In such circumstances, a landlord, who had let out his shop room to others for rent, may be in need of occupying the building, after evicting the tenants, to start a new avocation. We are of the view that such a need can never be said to be one without bona fides or it is a ruse for eviction, if he succeeds in proving such a circumstance. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, a bona fide prospective need of a Non Resident Indian under Sec.11(3) of the Act cannot be rejected, at the threshold, on the ground that he is still working abroad and the need is not a current or urgent one. Therefore, the Appellate Court is justified in reversing the findings of the Rent Control Court rejecting the claim under Sec.11(3) of the Act on the finding that the need is not a bona fide one as it is not current or urgent. 14. Thirdly, this Court is of the view that dismissal of a suit or petition on default may be due to laches or negligence in conducting the case either from the part of the party or his lawyer. There is no need to make an enquiry in this respect as it is incumbent upon the party to alert the lawyer to make him cautious and diligent in conducting the case. If the party has lost his confidence in the lawyer, it is for him to engage another lawyer at the earliest. Thus, the responsibility is on the party himself. Therefore, while considering an application for restoration of a suit or petition, it is presumed that the party is negligent or not diligent in conducting the case properly and the same cannot be attributed on the lawyer. But, we are of the opinion that it is not just and proper to take such a presumption to the merits of the case, while deciding the case finally, on merits, after trial. That apart, unless the Court was satisfied with the alleged "sufficient cause " stated in the application seeking restoration of the suit/petition, the suit/petition would not be restored on the files. If that be so, after restoring the same on the files, a contrary view can never be taken while considering the suit/petition on merits. That apart, unless the Court was satisfied with the alleged "sufficient cause " stated in the application seeking restoration of the suit/petition, the suit/petition would not be restored on the files. If that be so, after restoring the same on the files, a contrary view can never be taken while considering the suit/petition on merits. Therefore, the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition twice on default is of no consequence at all while determining the bonafides of the landlord and we reject the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel in this respect. 15. Indisputably, there is no statutory requirement, to issue notice to the tenants, demanding vacant possession of the building, before filing a Rent Control Petition, under Sec.11 (3) of the Act, on the ground of bona fide need. In the absence of a statutory mandate to send such a notice, the delay in filing the Rent Control Petition, after sending such a notice demanding vacant possession of the building is of no consequence at all, while considering the bona fides of the need, in case, the landlord had sent such a notice. Therefore, we also find that neither the delay in filing the Rent Control Petition, after sending notice to the tenants demanding vacant possession of the tenanted premises nor the absence of due diligence in conducting the case, including dismissal of the Rent Control Petition, on default, can be considered as proven facts evidencing lack of bona fides of the need. 16. Fourthly, it is the case of the landlord that he needs the petition schedule buildings for his own occupation, after reconstructing the building, as it is old and dilapidated one. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim under Sec.11(3) of the Act and granted an order of eviction under Sec.11(4)(iv) of the Act. But, in appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings under Sec. 11(3) and granted an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Act also and confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) granted by the Rent Control Court. It is true that the claim under Secs.11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act are distinct and different. But, in appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings under Sec. 11(3) and granted an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Act also and confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) granted by the Rent Control Court. It is true that the claim under Secs.11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act are distinct and different. But, we are of the opinion that where the bona fide need for own occupation, under Sec.11(3) of the Act, is coupled with claim for reconstruction under Sec.11(4)(iv) of the Act, if the claim under Sec.11(3) is allowed for own occupation, there is no need to make a further enquiry to the proviso to Sec.11(4)(iv) or bona fides under Section 11(10) of the Act as the tenant is liable to vacate the premises under Sec.11(3) of the Act. In such circumstance, no further order need be passed under Sec.11(4)(iv) of the Act, when there is no tenant other than the tenant against whom an order of eviction is sought under Sec.11(3) of the Act. 17. In the above analysis, we find that the Appellate Authority re-appreciated the evidence, on record, and arrived at a just and proper finding. The lower Appellate Authority is justified in reversing the findings of the Rent Control Court. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority and we concur with the findings of the Appellate Authority. 18. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants seeks time to vacate the petition schedule building; but the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord opposed the same and submits that a reasonable time alone can be granted to vacate the premises. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made at the Bar, we are inclined to grant six months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule building on the following conditions: (i) the revision petitioners/tenants shall pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and shall continue to pay the rent, without default; and (ii) the revision petitioners/tenants shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, expressing an undertaking that they would peacefully surrender the petition schedule building within six months from today. These Rent Control Revisions are dismissed accordingly.