ORDER : Mary Joseph, J. This revision is filed by the tenant, who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.3.2017 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in R.C.A.No.73 of 2016, by which the order passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P. No.92 of 2013 dated 16.12.2015 was confirmed. 2. The facts of the case in brief being relevant for the disposal of this rent control revision, are narrated hereunder in a nutshell:- The rent control petition was filed by the petitioners, who are respondents in this proceedings seeking eviction under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The tenanted premises are shop rooms belonging to the petitioners and those are leased out to the respondent on 1.1.2006 for a monthly rent of Rs.3500/- and the latter started conducting business in furniture therein in the name and style 'Janapriya Furniture'. At the time of leasing out the premises for rent, there has been agreement among the parties to enhance the rent at the rate of 5% annually. The revision petitioner had defaulted payment of rent and he caused the same to accumulate as arrears since 5.1.2011. The first petitioner, who was employed abroad, had returned therefrom after abandoning his job there. Since he has no job or avocation to sustain his livelihood, he intended to start a hardware business in the premises occupied by the respondent on lease arrangement. Accordingly, a registered notice was issued to the respondent demanding vacant surrender of the tenanted premises, on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need respectively under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The respondent did not accede to the demands raised by the petitioners in the notice and accordingly, petition seeking eviction was filed as RCP No.92/2013 before the Rent Control Court/Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode seeking for an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The respondents filed counter statement in the R.C.P. denying all the averments of the petitioners. Specific contentions have also been raised to the following effect:- The monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,250/- was paid till 31.2.2012. The petitioners were not in the habit of issuing receipts. Rent was paid by the respondent for the subsequent period, but the petitioners did not accept the same. Specific contentions have also been raised to the following effect:- The monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,250/- was paid till 31.2.2012. The petitioners were not in the habit of issuing receipts. Rent was paid by the respondent for the subsequent period, but the petitioners did not accept the same. The need alleged by the petitioners to start business in hardwares is not a bona fide one, but only a ruse for getting the respondent evicted from the tenanted premises. The petitioners are in vacant possession of rooms in the same building wherein the tenanted premises form a part. They are having several other businesses. Respondent is depending on the income from the business carried out in the petition schedule building as the main source of livelihood. The respondent has issued a cheque for Rs.36,000/- to the petitioners towards arrears of rent due from 1.2.2012. The petition is only liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. Before the Rent Control Court, apart from letting in oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the petitioners had also adduced documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A7. Evidence on the respondent's side consists of the oral evidence of RW1 and documentary evidence as Exts.B1 to B3 and B4(1) to B4(3). Exts.C1 and C2 were also marked as Court exhibits. 5. On an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record as abovementioned, the Rent Control Court found the need projected by the petitioners to start the proposed business in hardwares as a bona fide one and accordingly, ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found the claim of the petitioners for arrears of rent, unsustainable and accordingly, declined an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in their favour. However, the bona fide need projected by the petitioners in the R.C.P. was found established and the claim of the respondent to get protection from eviction under the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act was found not established. Accordingly, the finding on bonafide need was affirmed and an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was passed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, the respondent has approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in RCA No.73/2016. The appellate authority, vide judgment dated 21.3.2017, upheld the findings of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, the respondent has approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in RCA No.73/2016. The appellate authority, vide judgment dated 21.3.2017, upheld the findings of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. It is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act, the respondent in the R.C.P. is before this Court in the captioned revision petition. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this revision are referred to hereinafter in accordance with their status as 'the landlords' and 'the tenant' respectively. As already stated, it is the tenant, who is before this Court as the revision petitioner and the landlords, the respondents. 8. As was held by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [ 2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC)], this Court is empowered to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act only when the revision petitioner would succeed to convince that the authorities below, who had concurred on the finding had misread any evidence or that the finding is absolutely not based on any evidence. 9. The first and foremost argument of the learned counsel for the tenant was that the first landlord was owning and operating a quarry till 2013 and that very factum having not been averred in the petition seeking eviction, that is nothing but suppression of a material factum fatal to his case and liable to defeat the bonafides in the proposed need of the landlord to start a new business. According to the learned counsel, the landlord had taken a specific averment in the petition seeking eviction that after returning from Gulf to his native place, he had no avocation or business. According to him, this averment is contrary to his version in cross examination that he was running a quarry till 2013 and therefore, it was not a mere suppression of a material factum rather, it was something contrary to the pleadings itself and for the reason the first landlord can be treated as a man devoid of bonafides and the proposed need of him also have to be tested bearing that factum in mind. 10. 10. In view of the argument advanced as above, it is incumbent upon this court to see whether the lack of averment as contended would materially impact the bonafides in the need proposed. It is pertinent to note that the tenant had succeeded to extract from the first landlord, the factum of owning and running a quarry at the relevant time. According to the landlords, the functioning of the quarry was put to an end in the year 2013. The learned counsel during the course of the argument submitted on behalf of the landlords that the quarry was stopped in the year 2013 following some litigation and therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong in non-mentioning that in the petition seeking eviction and that cannot be said to have adverse impact on the bonafides in the proposed need of the landlord. 11. The landlords are two in numbers and the bonafide need projected is that of the first one. It is pertinent to note from the averments of the landlords in the Rent Control Petition that eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide need to start a business in hardwares. To establish the bonafide need, the first landlord was examined as PW1. According to him, he was abroad and returned to his native place after abandoning his job there. He has no source of livelihood locally and therefore, he intended to start a business in hardwares in the tenanted premises after obtaining the same in vacant surrender from the tenant. He has also deposed about his ability and capacity to start the proposed business. The tenanted premises being apt and suitable to start the proposed business and for want of any other suitable building in his possession to serve the purpose eviction was sought for the same. The tenant as RW1 had stated that the need alleged is not a bona fide one and only a ruse to get vacant surrender and then, to let it out for a higher rent. He has also stated that several other vacant rooms are in the possession of the landlords and therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. He has also stated that several other vacant rooms are in the possession of the landlords and therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. He further stated that the business in the tenanted premises being the main source of his livelihood and for want of suitable rooms in the locality to accommodate his business, he is entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 12. In our considered opinion the factum that the first landlord was owning a quarry and running the same evenafter returning from Gulf, till 2013 is not a material factum in a case wherein eviction on the ground of bonafide need is sought and for the very reason itself non-averring of the same in the application seeking eviction is a suppression liable to defeat the bonafides in the need as contended by the learned counsel for the tenant. Even if, the conduct of the quarry is established as on the date when eviction was sought, that cannot be a reason for declining an order of eviction in favour of the landlord, he being the master of his need and the tenant or none-else have no role to play while he is proposing to commence a business. The proposed business may be something in addition to the business already run. The huge financial resources available to the landlord will not and could not stand in the way or impede his desire to be in a more advantageous position than the one in which he was placed as on the date of raising the need. The tenant who had been given the right to occupy and enjoy the tenanted premises for a period on terms of agreed monthly rent cannot later on turn round and direct the landlord to be satisfied with the available resources and to refrain from commencing with additional ventures in disturbance of his occupation of the tenanted premises. It is within the realm of the landlord to see what he would resort to for his advantage and what he would avert to avoid detriment being resulted to him therefrom. The need if established as a genuine one cannot be thrown out as not a bonafide one for the sole reason of the landlord's engagement in multiple avocation and high economic status. The need if established as a genuine one cannot be thrown out as not a bonafide one for the sole reason of the landlord's engagement in multiple avocation and high economic status. A landlord cannot be found fault with for his desire to commence a new business when he had a profile to disclose that he is successfully involved in several such ventures and earning high profits therefrom. The bonafides in the proposed need of a landlord cannot be tested on the basis of his high financial status or in other words, a landlord cannot be directed to confine his claim for vacant surrender for the reason that his sustenance is difficult to be satisfied with the income from the business already run by him. It is for the landlord to choose his destiny. It is for him either to be satisfied with the resources already he had dreamt for better prospects. In the case on hand even if the landlord is continuing with the conduct of the quarry profitably even as on date of filing of the petition seeking eviction and failed to plead those aspects in the petition seeking eviction, he cannot be found fault with and his claim for vacant room is not liable to be viewed as something short of bonafides. It is the prerogative of the landlords to start a business of their choice. The landlords are not required by the Act to plead all their business ventures, in a petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. He is only bound to make out a prima facie case regarding his bonafides in the proposed need. The court dealing with the bonafide need has to see from the materials furnished by the landlord, whether, he was successful in establishing the proposed need as a bonafide one. 13. The witness, who was examined as PW2, had also deposed about the bonafides in the need proposed by PW1 in categoric terms. Both PWs.1 and 2 have been cross-examined extensively by the tenant, but the exercise turned futile on their failure to elucidate any materials liable to discredit them. It is in the said circumstances, the Rent Control Court has found the bona fide need projected by the landlords as established. Both PWs.1 and 2 have been cross-examined extensively by the tenant, but the exercise turned futile on their failure to elucidate any materials liable to discredit them. It is in the said circumstances, the Rent Control Court has found the bona fide need projected by the landlords as established. On our careful scrutiny of the evidence on record also we could not notice anything to record that the court below has arrived at the finding erroneously and thereby unjustified. The appreciation of evidence by the authorities below was in its proper perspective and accordingly, the finding on bonafide need does not call for interference. It deserves to be confirmed. 14. It is true that the tenant had raised a claim for protection under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. To avail the benefit, it has been pleaded by the tenant that PW1 has several other rooms in his possession. During examination, the tenant as RW1 had specifically pointed out the rooms allegedly held by the landlords in vacant possession. The tenant had also cross-examined PW1 with reference to the availability of those rooms. A Commission was taken up by the tenant in his venture to establish the availability of vacant rooms in the possession of the landlords. The Commissioner filed report as Ext.C1 and Plan as Ext.C2. The Advocate Commissioner has reported in Ext.C1 that at the time when he had visited the room bearing door No.VI/520, it was found lying vacant. The Commissioner had also noticed during his inspection that room bearing door No.VI/520 was lying without a permanent partition, but separated by a screen with the room lying adjacent thereto and in that, one Mr.Hussain was conducting business. It is also reported by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 that he was told at the time of inspection by Mr.Hussain available there that he is proposing to start a textile shop for ladies therein. The landlord when examined as PW1 had also tendered versions in tune with that. Therefore, evidently the room was already let out by the landlord to Mr.Hussain and was in his possession. The Advocate Commissioner had also reported the measurements of the said room as 4x 6 Mts. Room No.VI/635 was also pleaded by the tenant as lying in vacant possession of the landlord. Therefore, evidently the room was already let out by the landlord to Mr.Hussain and was in his possession. The Advocate Commissioner had also reported the measurements of the said room as 4x 6 Mts. Room No.VI/635 was also pleaded by the tenant as lying in vacant possession of the landlord. But it was reported by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 in terms contrary that one Dr.Balakrishan was occupying it to conduct a clinic therein. Therefore, the tenant's plea of availability of the room as vacant is untenable and is only to be discarded. The further plea of the tenant that certain rooms in the first and second floors of the building of which the tenant premises form a part are also lying vacant, was outrightly denied by the landlord stating that the second floor of the building is in occupation of Krishi Bhavan and the rooms in the first floor of the building are in occupation of some persons for residential purpose. Therefore, the tenant cannot be heard to contend that he had successfully discharged the initial burden cast on him under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act to establish availability of suitable vacant rooms in the possession of the landlord in the same City, Town or Village. 15. The important aspect to be noted from the evidence is that the tenant failed in establishing that suitable vacant rooms are available for the landlord to restrain himself from making an application seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises. Even if the tenant was successful in establishing that aspect by pointing out rooms as vacant in the first and second floors of the building, of which the tenanted premises form part, the court below has to be convinced of the special reasons stated by the landlord, of lack of road frontage and unsuitability on account of its limited area to accommodate the proposed business in hardwares. The evidence of the tenant as RW1 is also supportive as he had spoken that only the tenanted premises comprised of two rooms and yet another room in the ground floor in occupation of one Mr.Sainul Aabid alone are having road frontage. It has also come out in evidence that the tenanted premises comprising of two rooms have an area of 80 M2. It has also come out in evidence that the tenanted premises comprising of two rooms have an area of 80 M2. The tenant when examined as RW1 has also no case that the rooms pointed out as vacant by him are more suitable for starting the proposed business in hardwares. 16. Therefore, there is every justification for the courts below to be convinced that the proposed business being one related to hardwares, the petition schedule shop rooms, having larger area than the rest of the rooms in the building and road frontage would be apt and appropriate. There was nothing on record deterring the court below from taking a view that the tenanted premises being in the ground floor and having more area compared to the other rooms are the apt rooms to commence the business in hardwares. 17. The tenant had also attempted to establish the twin conditions envisaged under the second proviso to avoid an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Oral evidence has been let in by the tenant to establish that his sustenance is mainly on the income derived from the business run by the tenant in the tenanted premises and that other suitable buildings are not available in the locality for accommodating his business. The twin ingredients of the second proviso are conjunctive and it is the burden of the tenant to establish both to avail the protection thereunder. In the case on hand, as a measure to establish the availability of vacant rooms a commission was also taken up by the tenant. The evidence of the Advocate Commissioner was to the effect that several suitable vacant rooms are available in the locality to accommodate the business run by him in the tenanted premises. Therefore, the commission report turned against him and accordingly, he failed to establish the non-availability of suitable vacant rooms in the same city, town or village. The tenant did not also succeed in establishing that the business run by him in the tenanted premises was the main source of his livelihood at the relevant time. It is based on the evidence available as aforesaid that the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had arrived at the concurrent finding that the tenant is disentitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 18. It is based on the evidence available as aforesaid that the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had arrived at the concurrent finding that the tenant is disentitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 18. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to convince us about the existence of any grounds as have been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. case (supra) based on which, the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised. The finding of the authorities below was neither one rendered without any evidence nor one based on a misreading of evidence. There was sufficient and satisfactory evidence for the courts below to arrive at the finding and it was correct in all respects. The judgment cannot be said to be rendered erroneously. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope for interference with the concurrent finding in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act and the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The revision is only to fail. When we are about to part with the judgment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made a plea for getting the time for vacant surrender of the tenanted premises, extended. He pleaded for grant of one year time. One year is a lengthy time and if granted would be prejudicial to the landlord. In the circumstances, we feel ourselves justified in granting 9 months' time. (1) The tenant shall file an affidavit containing an unconditional undertaking before the Rent Control Court that he shall surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before the expiry of the nine months' period, which would start from the date of this judgment. The affidavit shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (2) The tenant shall also continue to pay the monthly rent at the admitted rate to the landlord, without failure.