ORDER : Mary Joseph, J. The Revision Petitioner is the first respondent in RCP No.232/2004 on the files of the Rent Control (Additional Munsiff) Court, Kannur and the appellant in RCA No.119/2012 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Thalassery. He has approached this Court in this revision against the concurrent findings of the said Courts on the bona fide need and order of eviction passed on its basis under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Before entering into a consideration of the contentions, it is apposite to have an understanding of the factual matrix of the case. The parties to this Revision Petition shall, for the purpose of the case will be referred to hereinafter as 'the landlord' and 'the tenants'. 2. The landlords are co-owners of the tenanted premises, more particularly described in the schedule to R.C.P. No.232/2004 as the petition schedule building and one Mukundan was holding the property in tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. He was a bachelor and he died. Thereafter, one Vinod, his nephew continued possession of the petition schedule building, but failed to pay the monthly rent. On account of the default in payment of rent by the tenant and unemployment of one Mr. Niyad, the son of one among the landlords, they thought it fit to get the tenant evicted from the tenanted premises for enabling Mr. Niyad to start a whole sale business in clothes on obtaining those rooms in vacant surrender. The landlord though has sufficient financial sources was not in possession of any other vacant building to part with his son for the business to be commenced. The petition schedule building incorporates in it three rooms and all those were in the occupation of the tenants, unauthorisedly. The business run by the tenant therein being grocery business, absolutely no requirement is there for him to occupy all those three rooms, two of which are situated in the ground floor and one in the first floor. Rooms to suit the need of the tenant are available in the locality for him to shift his business. The tenant has other source of income and the grocery business carried on by him in the petition schedule building was not his main source of income. Rooms to suit the need of the tenant are available in the locality for him to shift his business. The tenant has other source of income and the grocery business carried on by him in the petition schedule building was not his main source of income. The landlord demanded the tenant to surrender the vacant possession of the petition schedule building which was not acceded to by the tenant and thereupon a notice was caused to be served upon the former through a lawyer projecting the requirement. The tenant sent a reply and approached the landlord proposing to surrender one room in the ground floor and the one on the up-stair. But, the rooms were not surrendered as proposed and in view of the necessity of the landlords to provide Mr.Niyad with a vacant room, he was constrained to prefer the application as RCP No.232/2004 seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises leased out to him under Section 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. 3. The tenant resisted the RCP by filing counter statement. The claim of the landlord was denied. Specific contentions have also been raised that he is the nephew of late Mukundan, the original tenant and the second and third respondents in the RCP are the sisters and nieces of late Mukundan. According to him, Mukundan died in the year 1989 after executing a registered will and as per the will he bequeathed his right of tenancy over the building to four legal heirs, including himself. A settlement followed that and thereby he became the sole occupant of the petition schedule building. Rent was paid through court and no rent was due in arrears. He also claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act by contending categorically that the income derived from the grocery business run in the tenanted premises is his sole source of income and that other suitable buildings are not available in the locality to accommodate his business. According to him though, in occupation of three rooms and in view of its lesser area, all those are required for him to run his business suitably. Raising contentions as above, he pleaded for a dismissal of the RCP. 4. The petition seeking eviction was tried by the Rent Control (Additional Munsiff) Court, Kannur and the court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on 30.09.2006. Raising contentions as above, he pleaded for a dismissal of the RCP. 4. The petition seeking eviction was tried by the Rent Control (Additional Munsiff) Court, Kannur and the court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on 30.09.2006. The order was assailed by the aggrieved tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in RCA No.1/2007. The Appellate authority by judgment dated 31.10.2011 confirmed the finding on the bonafide need and remanded the matter to the Rent Control (Additional Munisiff's) Court, Kannur for the limited purpose of recording a finding on the question regarding the entitlement of the tenant to avail the benefit of first proviso to Sub Section (3) of Section 11 and to get exemption from eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. After the remand, at the instance of the landlord, a witness was examined as PW2 and Ext.P8 and P9 series were marked. On the side of the tenant, Ext.B10 and B11 series were marked. The Rent Control (Additional Munsiff's) Court found after appreciation of the evidence additionally let in that petitioners are not in possession of vacant rooms in the same City, Town or Village wherein the tenanted premises are situated and eviction was ordered under Section 11(3) of the Act. Appeal was preferred as R.C.A. No.119/2012 vide judgment dated 18.07.2017 the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Court-II) Thalassery concurred with the finding of the Rent Control (Additional Munsiff's) Court, Kannur. The concurrent findings on the first and second proviso to Section 11(3) are assailed in the captioned revision by the tenant. 6. The following grounds are raised in the revision petition: (i) The court below failed to advert to Ext.B10 and to find on its strength that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the first proviso to Section 11(3) and thereby to get exemption from eviction under Sub-Section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. According to the tenant, if Ext.B10 was appreciated in its proper perspective, availability of room No.29/1453 could have been perceived and in the absence of any satisfactory special reasons assigned by the landlord for not opting to occupy it, the Rent Control Court would have declined to pass an order of eviction in favour of the landlord. According to him, the order of eviction being impacted from an improper appreciation of evidence, it could have been rectified by reversing the same. According to him, the order of eviction being impacted from an improper appreciation of evidence, it could have been rectified by reversing the same. (ii) The court below is erred in holding in the absence of a kacheet or any other documents that building No.29/1453 was not occupied by tenants and it was available with the landlord vacantly. 7. In the backdrop of the grounds taken in the revision the evidence on record is appreciated. 8. Ext.B10 was marked in evidence by the tenant. It is nothing but a registered title deed bearing No.8488/1999 of S.R.O Kannur and it evidences that landlord has title over the building bearing No.CC 29/1453. But there is absolute want of evidence to show that the building bearing No.CC 29/1453 available with the landlord is a vacant one. The first proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 11 is apposite extraction hereunder. “Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction 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.” 9. Under the first proviso, the Rent Control Court is not empowered to issue a direction against the tenant for vacant surrender of the tenanted premises if the tenant has succeeded in establishing by evidence that the landlord is in possession of a vacant room in the same City, Town or Village and the landlord failed to furnish special reasons for not occupying the same. Therefore, if it is convincingly established by the tenant that vacant room is available in the possession of the landlord, the landlord has to state special reasons, why he has not chosen to occupy the said room for commencing the proposed business. On the failure of the landlord to state reasons for non-opting to occupy the same, the Rent Control Court will be empowered to pass an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, Special reasons shall come from the landlord. It is not the satisfaction of the landlord as to the reasons, that matters but the satisfaction of the Rent Control Court as to its sufficiency, that is decisive in the matter of granting the relief of eviction. Therefore, Special reasons shall come from the landlord. It is not the satisfaction of the landlord as to the reasons, that matters but the satisfaction of the Rent Control Court as to its sufficiency, that is decisive in the matter of granting the relief of eviction. Therefore, reasons having been furnished by the landlord, he has no further say, but it is for the Rent Control Court to view the reasons projected by the landlord in the backdrop of the requirement of the proposed business and the suitability of the vacant rooms in the landlord's possession for the same. The first proviso warrants the Rent Control Court to watch the special reasons from the point of view of the landlord and to see whether the reasons justify the landlord's non-determination to choose the alternative vacant rooms in his possession or unjustify its determination to opt the tenanted premises for the proposed business. Therefore, stating of some reasons as special reasons would not suffice for the purpose of availing the benefit of the first proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 11, but cogent and satisfactory reasons must be shown by the landlord to convince the mind of the court to grant the relief of eviction in his favour. 10. In the case on hand, while raising grounds in the revision petition, the contention specifically raised was that the tenant by marking Ext.B10 in evidence has established that building bearing No.CC29/1453 was owned by him. According to him, title if established, “de jure possession” is also established and therefore, it is the burden of the tenant to establish that the building was not occupied by any tenants and is vacantly available to the landlord. We would say without hesitation that the contention taken is truly against the spirit of the proviso. In the case on hand, the tenant was not successful in discharging the initial burden by pointing out a vacant room in the possession of the landlord. Only when the initial burden is discharged by the tenant, the onus will shift to the landlord to state special reasons for not occupying the vacant room shown as available in possession. 11. In the case on hand, concurrent findings on the bonafide need is there. The original order passed by the Rent Control Court dated 12.4.2012 was assailed and the order of the R.C.P. was confirmed. 11. In the case on hand, concurrent findings on the bonafide need is there. The original order passed by the Rent Control Court dated 12.4.2012 was assailed and the order of the R.C.P. was confirmed. It was remanded for the sole reason to consider the first proviso and thereby to arrive at a finding based on that. Therefore, the remand was only for a limited purpose to consider the first proviso on the basis of the evidence already on record and also the fresh evidence let in after remand. 12. With regard to all other findings except the new one directed to be considered afresh after remand the order had become final. Therefore, the findings on the bona-fide need for occupation of the dependent has been arrived at correctly by the Rent Control Court and when the same is assailed, the Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the said finding. The finding on bona-fide need under Sub-Section (3) of Section 11 and on the second proviso has become final and out of consideration of the Rent Control Court after the remand. 13. It is pertinent to note that, with regard to the findings on the bona-fide need and the second proviso, grounds are also not raised in the revision petition. Therefore, in a circumstance, where the tenant was found as unsuccessful in establishing the first proviso, in view of the finality reached on the findings of the Rent Control Court on the bona-fide need, we have no other alternative than to confirm the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 14. In the said circumstances, the Revision is only liable to fail. 15. Counsel for the tenant as a last submission sought for the grant of some time to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. The request is opposed by the counsel appearing for the landlord. However, considering the fact that the tenant is conducting grocery business from the premises and taking into account the time required for identifying and taking on rent a suitable premises for his business, we are inclined to grant time up to 30.09.2018, but subject to conditions. In the result, it is ordered as follows :- (1) The Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. In the result, it is ordered as follows :- (1) The Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. (2) The revision petitioner/tenant is granted time up to 30.09.2018 to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on condition that he swears to an affidavit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Rent Control Court, Kannur in R.C.P.No.232/2004, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the said date. It shall be a further condition for the grant of such time that the tenant pays all arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid and continues to pay the rent in respect of the premises without any delay or default to the landlord until vacant possession is surrendered. If the tenant commits default in fulfilling any of the above conditions, he shall forfeit the benefit of the above order.