Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 992 (KER)

V. P. Pradeep v. P. N. Pradeep

2018-12-03

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, MARY JOSEPH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mary Joseph, J. The Rent Control Revisions numbered as R.C.R. Nos.1 to 9/2016 have been preferred by the common landlord, against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in RCA Nos. 60/2010, 65/2010, 63/2010, 56/2010, 62/2010, 59/2010, 58/2010 and 61/2010 respectively reversing the order of eviction dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur in Rent Control Petitions numbered as 4 and 6 to 13 of 2008. Rent Control Revisions numbered as 61/2016, 62/2016 and 351/2015 have been preferred by the tenants against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA Nos.58/2010, 59/2010 and 62/2010 respectively, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kodungalloor in RCP Nos.7/2008, 13/2008 and 10/2008 under Sections 11(4)(v) ad 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. 2. Appeals preferred as RCA Nos. 56/2010, 57/2010, 60/2010, 61/2010, 63/2010 and 65/2010 were allowed and thereby RCP Nos. 11/2008, 12/2008, 6/2008, 8/2008, 9/2008 and 4/2008 respectively were dismissed. Appeals preferred as R.C.A Nos.58/2010, 59/2010 and 62/2010 were partly allowed and thereby the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act in R.C.P. Nos.7/2008, 13/2008 and 10/2008 were reversed. The order of eviction passed in RCP Nos.7/2008 and 10/2008 under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Act was maintained in RCA No.58/2010 and 59/2010. The order of eviction passed in RCP No.13/2008 under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act was confirmed in RCA No.62/2010 3. The petitioners who have filed the rent control petitions seeking eviction before the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur are none other than a common landlord who is the owner of a shopping complex building which incorporates the tenanted premises in respect of which eviction was sought, under various grounds. 4. The shopping complex is situated in a landed property having an area of 21.75 cents. The residential building of the landlord was also situated in the said property. Three rooms of the shopping complex and the residential building as such are in the possession of the landlord. 5. The landlord was a bank employee, who had taken voluntary retirement in January, 2001. He has two male children, who are degree holders, but were not settled. 3 rooms in the shopping complex building of which the tenanted premises sought to be evicted formed parts are already in the possession of the landlord. 5. The landlord was a bank employee, who had taken voluntary retirement in January, 2001. He has two male children, who are degree holders, but were not settled. 3 rooms in the shopping complex building of which the tenanted premises sought to be evicted formed parts are already in the possession of the landlord. A residential building is situated on the western side of the shopping complex. Some vacant space is also available on the northern side of the residential building. The shopping complex has NH-17 frontage and is situated on the eastern extremity of the entire building having a total extent of 21% cents. The building is also situated in a commercial area. The landlord who had cherished the desire to commence a hotel-lodging cum boarding business since the date of his voluntary retirement, found the property where the shopping complex is situated ideal for the purpose and accordingly undertook preliminary measures towards the proposed business. He procured a plan for the proposed construction of the building. The respondents are financially sound with landed property and other assets. They are totally depending on the income from the business conducted in the rooms in the building belonging to the petitioner for their livelihood. Rooms are available in the building in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner being in bonafide need of the space to construct the new building to accommodate the proposed business had issued notice to the respondents to surrender vacant possession of the rooms. The respondents replied denying availability of other rooms in the locality. Thereupon petitions seeking eviction have been preferred mainly on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3), arrears of rent under Section 11(2) (b), additional accommodation under Section 11(8), subletting under Section 11(4)(i), acquisition of another building by the tenant under Section 11(4)(iii) and cessation of occupation under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act. 6. The tenant in RCP No.6/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.4/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.9/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.11/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8), 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.4/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.9/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.11/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8), 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.10/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(8), 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.12/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11 (2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.13/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(2), 11(8) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.7/2008 was sought to be evicted under Sections 11(3), 11(8), 11(4)(iii) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.8/2008 was sought to be evicted under Section 11(3), 11(8) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant in RCP No.10/2008 was sought to be evicted under Section 11(8), 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The tenants resisted the petition seeking eviction on various grounds. 7. The Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act in all the Rent Control Petitions. In Rent Control Petitions filed as 7 and 10/2008, apart from ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, eviction was also ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. In petition preferred as RCP No.13/2008, apart from ordering eviction under Section 11(3), eviction was also ordered under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control court under Section 11(3) of the Act when assailed by the tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur set aside the same in all the Rent Control Petitions. The orders of eviction passed under Section 11 (4)(iii) in petitions preferred as RCP Nos.7 and 10/2008 and the one passed under Section 11(4)(v) in the petition preferred as RCP No.13/2008 were confirmed. 8. The landlord who suffered the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. Nos.56 to 63 and 65 of 2010 respectively, reversing the common order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act in R.C.P. Nos.4 and 6 to 13 of 2008, preferred Rent Control Revisions numbered as R.C.R. Nos.1/2016 to 9/2016. The tenants in R.C.P. Nos. The tenants in R.C.P. Nos. 7 and 10 of 2008 respectively, who suffered the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur respectively in R.C.A. Nos.61/2010 and 62/2010 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act have preferred Rent Control Revisions as R.C.R. Nos.61/2016 and 351/2015 and the tenant who suffered judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.59/2010 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P. No.13/2008 under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act, preferred Rent Control Revision as R.C.R. No. 62/2016. 9. All the tenants contested the petitions seeking eviction by raising contentions common that the need alleged by the landlord is not a bona fide one, that the landlord was without sufficient funds for getting the proposed project materialised and that the real intention of the landlord was to obtain vacant possession of the tenanted premises and to effectuate sale of the same for consideration. The tenants, against whom default of rent was alleged by the landlord have denied the same. The tenants have also sought protection from eviction based on the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 10. Apart from the above, the tenant in R.C.P. No.6/2008 has raised contentions specific to the following effect:- The jewellery business run by him in the petition scheduled building in the year 1984 flourished well and gained reputation and therefore, demands were frequent from the landlord for enhancement of the rent of the tenanted premises, that he is not in possession of any other building or landed properties within the limits of Kodungallur Municipality to shift the jewellery business, that the small item of property wherein his residence is situated, is not liable to derive any income for him, that the business conducted in the petition scheduled rooms is the main source of livelihood for him and his family, that there is total want of suitable rooms in the locality for him to shift the business from the tenanted premises, that the petitioner is not entitled to get vacant possession of the building for additional accommodation for his personal use and that comparative hardships likely to arise from an order of eviction being passed against, are more to him, when compared to that of the landlord. 11. 11. Specific contentions in addition to the common ones are also raised by the tenant in R.C.P. No.7/2008 to the following effect:- At the time of execution of the lease agreement itself Rs.2,00,000/- was collected by the landlord from him as refundable advance, that suitable rooms are not available in the locality to shift the office of the driving school which was conducted by him in the tenanted premises, that the rooms held in ownership and possession by the landlord in the Kodungallur Municipality are sufficient to start the proposed business and that rent was paid by him to the landlord regularly till November, 2007. 12. Specific contentions raised by the tenant in R.C.P. No.8/2008 in addition to the common contentions are that furniture business conducted in the tenanted premises since 1986 is the sole source of his income to sustain his livelihood, that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was collected by the landlord from him at the time of taking the room for rent, that he himself is conducting the business and that the tenanted premises has never been sublet to any other person. 13. The contentions specifically raised by the tenant in R.C.P. No.9/2008 in addition to the common ones are that a Medical Shop has been run by him in the tenanted premises for the last 15 years and himself, his family and two employees under him are depending on the income derived therefrom for their livelihood and that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was given at the time of obtaining the premises on rent as refundable advance. 14. The contentions specifically raised by the tenant in R.C.P. No.10/2008 in addition to the common ones are that a jewellery business is being conducted by him in the tenanted shop room, that the said business is the main source of his livelihood, that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the landlord as refundable security at the time of availing of the room on rent and that the building being a new one, is not required to be demolished by the landlord for constructing a new one in its place for commencing the proposed business of hotel cum boarding and lodging. 15. 15. The contentions specifically raised by the tenant in R.C.P. No.9/2008 in addition to the common ones are that a Medical Shop has been conducting in the tenanted premises with two employees under the name and style 'Faizal Medicals' for the last 15 years, that himself and his employees are mainly depending on the income derived therefrom for their livelihood and that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the landlord as refundable security at the time of availing the tenanted premises on rent. 16. The contentions specifically raised by the tenant in R.C.P. No.10/2008 in addition to the common ones are that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as refundable security at the time of availing the premises on rent and that the income from the jewellery business being conducted by him in the tenanted premises is the main source of income to sustain the livelihood of himself and his family. 17. The tenant in R.C.P. No.11/2008 has contended specifically in addition to the common ones that the income derived from the footwear business being conducted in the tenanted premises is the main source of livelihood for him and his family and that he has not sublet the tenanted premises to some other person as alleged by the landlord. 18. The tenant in R.C.P. No.12/2008 has raised specific contentions apart from those raised in common that the tenanted premises has been taken on rent by him in the year 1986, that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid as security at that time when the premises was availed on rent and that rent had never been defaulted. 19. In R.C.P. Nos.13 & 6/2008 a common tenant is involved and therefore contentions taken are also common. 20. All the Rent Control Petitions were tried jointly by the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur and evidence was recorded in common in R.C.P. No.6/2008 as the main case. 21. Based on the pleas, the Rent Control Court proceeded with trial of the above Rent Control Petitions jointly. The common evidence includes the oral evidence tendered by one Mr. V.P. Pradeep, the common landlord in all the petitions seeking eviction as PW1, his younger son, Mr. Dibin Pradeep as PW2, one Mr. G. Sudhakaran as PW3 and Smt. O.S. Nafeesa, the Advocate Commissioner as PW4. The common evidence includes the oral evidence tendered by one Mr. V.P. Pradeep, the common landlord in all the petitions seeking eviction as PW1, his younger son, Mr. Dibin Pradeep as PW2, one Mr. G. Sudhakaran as PW3 and Smt. O.S. Nafeesa, the Advocate Commissioner as PW4. The common documentary evidence on record include true copies of the lawyer notices and the reply notices respectively issued by the common landlord to the respective tenants in the Rent Control Petitions and by the tenants to the landlord as Exts.A1 to A16, copies of receipts relating to deposit of rent as Exts.A17, A17 (a) to (m) and Ext.A20, the Plan and Building Permit marked respectively as Ext.A18 and A19 and the Commission reports and the plans prepared by the Advocate Commissioner in respective Rent Control Petitions as Exts.C1 to C8 and C1 (a) to C8 (a). 22. The tenants' evidence include the oral evidence of themselves as RW1 to RW7 and documentary evidence as Exts.B1 to B10. 23. The Rent Control Court, based on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the claim of the landlord for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) in all the petitions seeking eviction as totally unsustainable for the reason that proper demand figuring the actual rent payable was not made in the notices sent in accordance with the mandate of the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and accordingly, declined to pass an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Even though the common order of the Rent Control Court in the Rent Control Petitions have been taken up in challenge by all tenants in appeal, no specific grounds of challenge was raised against the finding of the Rent Control Court on arrears of rent and therefore the said finding under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act has become final. 24. Eviction was also sought by the landlord under Section 11 (8) of the Act in R.C.P. Nos.6 to 13/2008. The landlord as PW1 has testified that in one among the 3 rooms occupied by him, a Marriage Bureau is being conducted. As per Section 11(8), a landlord in occupation of a portion of the building alone could apply for an order of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. His requirement for additional accommodation must be supplementary to the use for which he was occupying the room. As per Section 11(8), a landlord in occupation of a portion of the building alone could apply for an order of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. His requirement for additional accommodation must be supplementary to the use for which he was occupying the room. The landlord has not spoken precisely while tendering oral evidence that vacant surrender of the adjacent rooms is required for expanding the business being conducted by him in the tenanted premises already held in possession. It is convincingly clear that the petitioner in the case on hand is conducting a marriage bureau and the need projected for vacant surrender of the tenanted premises is not for expansion of the 'marriage bureau'. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court found the need of the landlord as not supplementary in nature and declined eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act are mutually exclusive, entirely different and the requirements are also different. It is open to the landlord to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or on both subject to his requirements. But the only difference is that the test of bona fide need under Section 11 (3) would be more rigorous than the test for the same under Section 11(8) of the Act. 25. In R.C.P. No.11/2008 contention taken by the landlord was that the tenanted premises was sub let by the tenant to some other person and eviction was also sought under Section 11(4) (i) of the Act. In the absence of any cogent evidence to support the plea of PW1 that the tenanted premises has been sub let to a third party, the Rent Control Court declined to grant an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Act. Ext.B7 partnership deed dated 01.04.2003 was marked in evidence by the tenant and the recitals therein unveiled the factum that in the premises let out, the original tenant was running the business in leather along with his brothers and their children. The original tenant being the Managing Partner, there is every basis for the Rent Control Court to find that the tenanted premises has not been sub let. The order of eviction sought under Section 11(4)(i) was declined for the reason. 26. The original tenant being the Managing Partner, there is every basis for the Rent Control Court to find that the tenanted premises has not been sub let. The order of eviction sought under Section 11(4)(i) was declined for the reason. 26. The plea of the landlord in R.C.P. No.13/2008 was that the tenant therein had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for a period of six months without reasonable cause and vacant surrender of the said tenanted premises sought on that ground was declined by the Rent Control Court based on the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner marked in evidence, which disclose that leather items were found stored in the room at the time of her inspection. The tenant therein was none other than the brother of the tenant in R.C.P. No.11/2008 and one among the partners as evidenced from Ext.P7 partnership deed and Ext.P9 report of inspection of the Sales Tax authorities and also from the oral evidence that leather items have been stacked in the room. 27. The tenant in R.C.P. No.6/2008 has stated after mounting the box that the tenanted premises in R.C.P. No.13/2008 was being used by him as a workshop for making gold ornaments. As RW2, he deposed that goldsmith will be arranged there for the work on getting orders. But, the Commission Report does not say anything about the work in gold jewellery being progressed therein. Having been established from the evidence that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises described in the schedule to R.C.P. No.13/2008 for the purpose for which it was taken on rent, the Rent Control Court was pleased to grant an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, the common order dated 11.08.2010 was passed by the Rent Control Court in the petition seeking evictions pending on its file in the manner as extracted hereinbelow:- "R.C.P.6/08: Prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is allowed, and the prayer for eviction under Section 11(8) and 11(2)(b) are dismissed. R.C.P.7/08: Prayer in the petition for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) are allowed and prayer under Section 11(8) and 11(2)(b) dismissed. R.C.P.8/08: Petition for eviction under Section 11(3) is allowed and prayer for eviction under Section 11(8) and 11(2)(b) is dismissed. R.C.P.9/08: Petition for eviction under Section 11(3) allowed and prayer under section 11(8) is dismissed. R.C.P.7/08: Prayer in the petition for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) are allowed and prayer under Section 11(8) and 11(2)(b) dismissed. R.C.P.8/08: Petition for eviction under Section 11(3) is allowed and prayer for eviction under Section 11(8) and 11(2)(b) is dismissed. R.C.P.9/08: Petition for eviction under Section 11(3) allowed and prayer under section 11(8) is dismissed. R.C.P.10/08: Prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) are allowed and prayer under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(8) and dismissed. R.C.P.11/08: Petition under Section 11(3) allowed and prayer under Section 11(8), 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) are dismissed. Petition under Section 11(3) is allowed and petition for eviction under Section 11(8) 11(2)(b) dismissed. R.C.P.13/08: Petitioner's prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(v) are allowed and prayer under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(8) dismissed." A further direction was also issued as per the order to the tenants to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises within one month from the date of the order. The landlord was also granted liberty to approach the Court to get the order executed in case of failure of the tenants to surrender vacant possession as directed. 28. The aggrieved tenants approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, in appeals filed by them as R.C.A Nos.56/2010, 57/2010, 58/2010, 59/2010, 60/2010, 61/2010, 62/2010, 63/2010 and 65/2010. The landlord who was denied with orders of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(8) and 11(4)(i) did not file any appeal against and thereby allowed the findings of the Rent Control Court in that respect to become final. 29. The common ground of challenge taken by all the tenants in the appeals was that the Rent Control Court went totally in error in finding that the need alleged by the landlord to start a business in hotel cum boarding and lodging and seeking vacant surrender of the tenanted premises for the purpose is a bona-fide one. 29. The common ground of challenge taken by all the tenants in the appeals was that the Rent Control Court went totally in error in finding that the need alleged by the landlord to start a business in hotel cum boarding and lodging and seeking vacant surrender of the tenanted premises for the purpose is a bona-fide one. According to the tenants, the Rent Control Court appreciated the evidence on record in its wrong perspective to hold that the tenant is disentitled to get the benefit under the 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act in all the petitions seeking eviction and the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction of the tenants in RCP No.7/2008 under Section 11(4)(iii) for the reason of the tenant acquiring possession of a reasonably sufficient building and in RCP No.13/2008 under Section 11(4)(v) for the reason of cessation of occupation. According to the tenants, the Rent Control Court has committed the same error while passing the order of eviction in favour of the landlord under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Act in RCP No. 10/2008. 30. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, on appreciation of the evidence in the backdrop of the contentions raised by the tenants as above and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in that respect, found the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur, erred in finding that the landlord has successfully established the bona fide need for vacant surrender of the tenanted premises in the petition schedule building. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found the reasoning and the finding of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction of the tenants under Section 11(4)(iii) in RCP Nos.7/08 and 10/08 and under Section 11 (4)(v) in RCP No.13/08 as just and reasonable and accordingly upheld those. The finding of the Rent Control Court on the 1st and 2nd provisos to Section 11(3) was also upheld by the Rent Control Appellate Authority vide its common judgment dated 31.07.2015. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the finding on bona fide need and declination to pass an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord has now approached this Court in Revision. 31. Sri. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the finding on bona fide need and declination to pass an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord has now approached this Court in Revision. 31. Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the revision petitioners in R.C.R Nos.1/2016 to 9/2016 urged that the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, to the extent it interfered with the findings of the Rent Control Court on the bonafide need of the landlord and reversal of the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act suffers from illegality, impropriety and infirmity. According to him, the Appellate Authority found that the landlord had failed to commence the construction of the proposed building in the vacant space already available to him. According to the Appellate Authority, the failure of the landlord to start the proposed constructions in the vacant space available to him which as per Ext.P17 plain itself is more than sufficient to accommodate almost major portion of the construction is a crucial aspect liable to defeat the bona fides in the need put forth by the land lord. The Appellate Authority had observed in the impugned judgment that the construction of the proposed building could have been commenced by the landlord on the western portion of the plot and completed without getting the tenants occupying the tenanted premises evicted therefrom. 32. It is contended by the landlord that the appellate authority ought to have found that without identifying and allocating sufficient space for parking of vehicles, the project is difficult to be materialised in a successful manner. The appellate authority had found fault with the landlord for failing to establish availability of sufficient funds with him for implementation of the project and for not producing the estimate to evidence the money required to meet the expenses for the proposed construction. The Appellate Authority found the landlord as unsuccessful in establishing the bona fides in his need. The Appellate Authority seems to have dealt with some matters which are, totally irrelevant and unnecessary in its quest to decide on the bonafides in the need projected by the landlord. 33. The Appellate Authority found the landlord as unsuccessful in establishing the bona fides in his need. The Appellate Authority seems to have dealt with some matters which are, totally irrelevant and unnecessary in its quest to decide on the bonafides in the need projected by the landlord. 33. The tenants in R.C.P. Nos.7/2008, 10/2008 and 13/2008 had also suffered judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as appellants therein in R.C.A Nos.58/2010, 62/2010 and 59/2010 and aggrieved thereby took the said judgment in revision by preferring revision petitions respectively as RCR Nos.61/2016, 351/2015 and 62/2016. 34. Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the tenant who preferred Revision Petition as RCR No.351/2015 and Sri. K. Ramakrishanan, the learned counsel for the tenants who preferred Revision Petitions as RCR Nos.62/2016 and 61/2016 were also heard on the respective Revision Petitions. 35. The contention of the revision petitioners in R.C.R Nos.351/2015 and 61/2016, who are none other than tenants in R.C.P. Nos.10/2008 and 07/2008 was that a mere possession of another building by the tenant is not sufficient to grant an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. According to him, the order of eviction would sustain only if the landlord was successful in establishing that the tenant had already been in possession of any building or subsequently acquires possession of a building in the city, town or village and it is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. According to him, Section 11(4)(iii) contemplates acquisition of a building by the tenant after the commencement of tenancy. According to him, the possession of the building dealt with in the impugned judgment as acquired by the tenant was available in his possession even at the inception of tenancy and therefore an order of eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) will not sustain in the case on hand. According to him, the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control Court erred in holding otherwise on a mistaken understanding of the spirit of the provision and interference is called for. 36. According to the learned counsel for the tenant in RCR No.61/2016, the tenant has not acquired possession of any building in the city, town or village, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement and therefore an order of eviction passed under Section 11 (4)(iii) will not sustain. 36. According to the learned counsel for the tenant in RCR No.61/2016, the tenant has not acquired possession of any building in the city, town or village, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement and therefore an order of eviction passed under Section 11 (4)(iii) will not sustain. The building wherein the tenant had put the board 'Kodungallur Driving School Association, Kodungallur' is his residence itself. The tenanted premises is required by him for the purpose of maintaining the office of the Driving School and accommodating students for imparting theory classes on driving. In his view, the court below failed to advert to that aspect while evaluating the evidence and accordingly eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) suffers from illegality warranting interference. 37. The revision petitioners in the respective revision petitions have contended that the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to the extent it confirm the orders of eviction directing them to surrender the tenanted premises on the grounds as aforesaid is bad in law and facts and the said finding being the outcome of an incorrect appreciation of evidence available on record are liable to be interfered with and reversed. 38. Apart from the contentions raised on want of bona fides in the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act, the revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 62/2016 has also raised contentions to the effect that in a case where the bona fide need of the landlord was found without merits and discarded, an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v), being incidental thereto will not sustain and therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have reversed it. According to him, for an order under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act to sustain, the landlord must have established cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises by the tenant for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause. In the case on hand, evidence was not forthcoming to establish non-conduct of business by the tenant continuously for a period of six months, and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought not to have confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. According to the tenants, the judgment under challenge for the said reason suffers from illegality and infirmity and liable to be interfered with. 39. According to the tenants, the judgment under challenge for the said reason suffers from illegality and infirmity and liable to be interfered with. 39. The respondent/landlord resisted the revision petitions by raising contentions supportive of the reasoning of the Rent Control Court itself while arriving at the finding on bona fide need and passing of the order of eviction under Section 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The common contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant was that the Rent Control Appellate Authority's finding on bona fide need and the judgment reversing the order of eviction thereunder are liable to be confirmed without interference. 40. In the backdrop of the rival contentions advanced before us elaborately by the respective counsel, an in-depth analysis and appreciation of the evidence being inevitable, we endeavoured to do so. 41. As dealt with earlier, evidence was adduced before the Rent Control Court by rival parties to the petition seeking eviction. Landlord being common in all the Rent Control Petitions and the tenanted premises being rooms in a common building, all petitions seeking eviction of the tenants have been jointly tried by the Rent Control Court, treating R.C.P. No.6/2008 as the main case. The evidence adduced had already been dealt with. 42. The landlord in all petitions seeks for vacant surrender of the tenanted premises mainly on the ground of bona fide need of the building, which takes in the premises let out to various tenants. 43. The bona fide need projected by the landlord as disclosed from Ext.A1 notice and his pleadings in the RCP was to construct a new building to start a hotel cum lodging and boarding business. For the purpose, he projected the requirement of some vacant landed property which, according to him, could be procured on demolition of the building wherein the tenanted premises are situated. Many of the rooms of the said building having been let out to tenants, to facilitate vacant surrender of those, legal proceedings had been initiated by the landlord by filing petitions seeking eviction. It was resisted by all the tenants contending in common that the need alleged is not a bona fide one but only a ruse for eviction. 44. Many of the rooms of the said building having been let out to tenants, to facilitate vacant surrender of those, legal proceedings had been initiated by the landlord by filing petitions seeking eviction. It was resisted by all the tenants contending in common that the need alleged is not a bona fide one but only a ruse for eviction. 44. The reasons for resistance are manifold and a mention note of those are made hereunder:- (i) after taking voluntary retirement from the bank in the year 2001, the landlord had not ventured to start any business. (ii) the two male children of the landlord are Post Graduate Degree holders and are well placed. The elder one being a trainee in a company and the younger, a medical representative, getting a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-, they cannot be taken to be desirous of starting the proposed business and there cannot be basis for the claim of the landlord that his sons are interested in assisting him in his business. (iii) Both in the Petitions seeking eviction and in the statutory notice the word that precedes 'need' is not 'bona fide' but 'desire' only. The word 'desire', cannot be equated with the word 'bona fide' in use in Section 11(3) of the Act to fit within its ambit and coverage as contemplated by the Act. (iv) Landlord is already in possession of three rooms and a residential building situated on the western side of the building wherein the shopping complex is accommodated and by demolishing those structures, he could have started the proposed construction in the vacant space available with him. (v) The bona fides in the need alleged is liable to be defeated when viewed in the backdrop of the inconsistent versions spoken by PW1 and PW2 while tendering oral evidence. (vi) The landlord had taken VRS in January 2001 and has come with a desire to commence the proposed business only in the year 2007 after a lapse of 6 years and therefore, the proposed need cannot be treated as a bona fide one. (vii) Want of previous experience for the landlord in the conduct of the hotel cum boarding and lodging business and the unsuccessful conduct of businesses run by him on previous occasions are also indications to doubt the bona fides in the need put forth. 45. (vii) Want of previous experience for the landlord in the conduct of the hotel cum boarding and lodging business and the unsuccessful conduct of businesses run by him on previous occasions are also indications to doubt the bona fides in the need put forth. 45. All the contentions raised by the tenants in resistance as above, have been turned down by the Rent Control Court after evaluating the same in the backdrop of the evidence available. The Rent Control Court also found the proposed need of the landlord as a bona fide one and accordingly ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act which when assailed was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 46. In this connection, it is pertinent to have a look at the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to see whether the reversal of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was based on cogent and justifiable reasons. Paragraphs 26 to 28 of the impugned judgment contain the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and those being relevant are extracted hereunder:- "26. On going through the judgment passed by the Rent Control Court, the fact whether the landlord could have started construction of the proposed building even before seeking eviction of the tenants or in the course of proceedings for eviction, could be found not really pondered into. The landlord has referred to Ext.A17 building permit and Ext.A18 approved plan for the proposed construction. As observed earlier, the total extent of property available with the respondent, wherein the petition schedule building exists is 21% cents. The report of the commissioner would make it clear that the existing building comes within the eastern half of the whole extent of the property. The residential building available on the western half is not occupied. The western half including the residential house has an extent of 10 cents of land. Landlord has affirmed that the residential building is to be demolished for the proposed construction and that was why himself and family shifted residence. The residential building is not yet demolished. The residential building occupies an extent of 1800 sq.ft from Ex.A18 approved plan, it could be found that almost the whole structure of the proposed building or substantial portion of the same is supposed to be build in the western half of the whole property. The residential building is not yet demolished. The residential building occupies an extent of 1800 sq.ft from Ex.A18 approved plan, it could be found that almost the whole structure of the proposed building or substantial portion of the same is supposed to be build in the western half of the whole property. Only some projections are there onto the east invading into the existing building. As per Ext.A18 approved plan, the existing building stands in the proposed parking area. The proposed building has its elevation towards east as to have easy and better access from the National Highway. So, the whole existing residential building will have to be pulled down for the new construction and the existing front yard/space as per Ext.A18 plan. That makes it clear that apart from pulling down the existing structure and levelling the area, no much construction need be done in the space occupied by the existing building as per Ext.A18 plan. It being so, the respondent could have started construction of the proposed building long back. Landlord cannot be heard to contend that he will be able to start construction of the new building only after demolition of the existing structure since the purpose is only to make an open yard in front of the building. There was no reason to delay the construction. Had he started the construction in the year 2001 the same would have been completed by this time. If construction is delayed it will only invite more expenses and thus he would be put in a disadvantage. If he had started construction earlier in the open area available after demolishing the residential building which in his possession, excess costs could even be avoided. Fact that construction costs had sky-rocketed in the recent years cannot be ignored. Funds made ready ten years would not be enough to put up the proposed construction now. So as contended by the tenants, the landlord would have started construction earlier if he really did intend to put up the new construction. Why he had not started construction in the open area available, pursuant to receipt of Exts.A17 and A18 plan, would certainly bring doubt to his claim of bona fide need. As contended by the appellants' side, there is a public road on the north and it is sufficient enough to provide access to conduct building materials for the proposed plan. 27. As contended by the appellants' side, there is a public road on the north and it is sufficient enough to provide access to conduct building materials for the proposed plan. 27. It is also submitted that the portions of the land including the eastern portion of the existing building abutting the National Highway has been identified for acquisition for widening the road. So, demolition of the existing building or portion of the same for widening the road is a possibility. In the circumstances, there was no reason for the respondent to wait for eviction of the appellants as to start with the construction of the new proposed building. It is settled law that the landlord cannot be expected to sit idle till he gets vacant possession of the petition schedule building. If he is keen, to materialize the 'dream project", he would have certainly started his work long back. The respondent/landlord could not explain why he did not start construction especially when substantial portion of the proposed new building is to be build in the western half of the land available with him as per the approved plan. Further, as per Exts.A17 and A18, the time limit given for completion of the construction ends in 2011. The respondent had not referred to any documents as to suggest that he had taken steps to renew the permit and extent the time mentioned for completion of the construction. 28. As per Ext.A17, the proposed new building covers only a plinth area of 738.77 sq.m altogether The plinth area of the ground floor is restricted to 375.1 sq.m. It being so, if the respondent had been keen and having had enough funds for the proposed project, he would have certainly pursued the proposed constitution. But, he did not. The only excuse he could make is that it would not be possible for him to start construction unless the appellants surrender vacant possession. That would certainly belittle his claim of bonafide need for the petition schedule building. So the finding of the lower court that the respondent could successfully show a bona fide need for the petition scheduled building seems to be wrong on facts and evidence available on record. " Admittedly, three rooms and the residential building situated on the western side of the shopping complex building were in the possession of the landlord. So the finding of the lower court that the respondent could successfully show a bona fide need for the petition scheduled building seems to be wrong on facts and evidence available on record. " Admittedly, three rooms and the residential building situated on the western side of the shopping complex building were in the possession of the landlord. But, the tenant has no authority to direct the landlord to confine the construction of the new building in the space vacantly available in his possession. It is settled by various judicial pronouncements that the tenant shall not dictate terms of action to the landlord or direct him to fit the construction within the limited space available in his possession. It is within the exclusive domain of the landlord to decide on the kind of business and the manner in which it is required to be started. Therefore, the tenant is not justified in contending that the proposed building could be constructed in the vacant space already available in the possession of the landlord and the business could be commenced therein. 47. Then the question mooted for our consideration was whether the need alleged by the landlord to construct a new building in the space obtained after demolition of the shopping complex to commence the business of hotel cum boarding and lodging is a genuine one to treat as a bona fide need? 48. As already dealt with, the landlord as PW1 has deposed in categoric terms in tune with what had been pleaded by him in the petition seeking eviction to establish that the need alleged by him is a bona fide one. According to PW1, he was a person who opted for voluntary retirement from his employment as a Manager of the Bank in the year 2001. According to him, after retirement he had cherished a desire in mind to start a hotel cum boarding and lodging business by constructing a building in the space wherein the residential building, the already evicted tenanted premises and those sought to obtain in the proceedings on hand, are situated. According to him, as a prelude or as an initial measure, he had shifted his residence from the already occupied one to a new building. According to him, as a prelude or as an initial measure, he had shifted his residence from the already occupied one to a new building. He had also attempted to establish through the plan and licence obtained from local bodies and marked in evidence as Ext.A18 and Ext.A19 that he had obtained those, being the prime requirements to start with the construction to accommodate the proposed business. He had also established through oral evidence that his two sons are well educated and are aspirants for employments to suit their academic qualification. According to him, both of them are employed and are looking forward for placements better than the one already held by them. According to him, the children have the pleasure to assist him and also the intention to join the business proposed to start and they would join immediately after obtaining the petition schedule building in vacant surrender. Exts.A17, 17(a) to (m) and A20 are copies of receipts of fixed deposits, the landlord had with various banks and those are produced and marked in evidence to establish that he has financial resources with him to start with the proposed business. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the landlord has apprised the court that these are material pieces of evidence brought in by the landlord to throw light to his pragmatic approach towards the materialisation of his dream project and the measures undertaken are pointing to his bona fides in the said need. The further attack of the tenants on the bona fide need was mainly on the reason that the need alleged is not a bona fide one as the word specifically in usage in the pleadings of the landlord is 'desire'. According to him, 'desire' is some degree short of the bonafide need as contemplated by Section 11(3) of the Act. According to him, desire needs something more to be a bonafide need and when that is totally lacking, the landlord cannot claim to have substantiated the bona fides in his need and the eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) will not sustain. According to them, the landlord had with him, some vacant space which would suitably accommodate main portion of the building he intends to construct as per Ext.P17 plan and the proposed business could also be commenced therein. According to them, the landlord had with him, some vacant space which would suitably accommodate main portion of the building he intends to construct as per Ext.P17 plan and the proposed business could also be commenced therein. According to him, due to the lapse of the landlord to commence the construction in the already available vacant space, the desire the landlord was entertaining in mind, cannot be said to have matured to a 'bonafide need' and therefore the claim of the landlord is only liable to be defeated. According to the tenant, the landlord's inaction on that line itself would cut at the root of his claim of bona fide need. According to him, the evidence on record had been analysed and appreciated in its correct perspective by the Rent Control Appellate Authority while reversing the respective orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act in RCP No.4/2008 singly and in all other Rent Control Petitions jointly. 49. The Rent Control Appellate Authority while dealing with the evidence had noticed that the estimate for the proposed construction was not produced by the landlord. In the view of the Appellate Authority, the non-production of estimate in a case of the nature being crucial, the proposed need of the landlord is liable to be viewed as something short of bona fide need. According to him, the plan and the licence were not live at the relevant time and the failure on the part of the landlord to get it renewed, is only liable to defeat the bona fides further. According to him, the landlord was devoid of sufficient funds with him to meet the costs of the proposed construction as the resources espoused as available through evidence were only Ext.P17 series, the Fixed Deposit Receipts. Evidence is not forthcoming to show that the landlord had already availed any bank loan to mobilise the funds needed for the proposed construction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found fault with the Rent Control Court for not adverting to those aspects while appreciating the evidence and arriving at the bona fide need in the affirmative. Evidence is not forthcoming to show that the landlord had already availed any bank loan to mobilise the funds needed for the proposed construction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found fault with the Rent Control Court for not adverting to those aspects while appreciating the evidence and arriving at the bona fide need in the affirmative. According to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the bona fides in the claim of the landlord was defeated for want of production of estimate for the proposed construction, renewal of the permit and the plan, the validity period of which has already been expired and the non-mentioning about the sources, the landlord is looking forward for financial support. According to the Appellate Authority, the Rent Control Court failed to give due credit to those aspects and for those reasons, its finding was reversed and the order of eviction passed by it under Section 11(3) was set aside. 50. The challenge is on the justifiability of the Rent Control Appellate Authority's reasoning while reversing the finding of the Rent Control Court on 'bonafide need' and confirming the finding on acquisition and cessation of occupation of the building by the tenant. 51. Plan and licence are documents available to establish that the landlord had taken the initiatives towards materialisation of his dream project. They are the prime documents without the backing of which the proposed construction could not be legally pursued with. The landlord had also marked the Fixed Deposit Receipts available with him to establish that funds to start with the proposed construction was available with him. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had found fault with the landlord for not commencing the construction of the building in the vacant property and utilising the fund available with him, to doubt the bona fides in his need. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had gone further to the extent of opining that in the vacant land already available with the landlord itself, the proposed building could effectively be carried out, and therefore eviction of the tenants from the tenanted premises is totally an unwanted affair. It seems from the narration in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the impugned judgment cited supra that, the Rent Control Appellate Authority had gone to the extent of substituting Ext.A18 plan of the landlord for the proposed project, with it's own plan. 52. It seems from the narration in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the impugned judgment cited supra that, the Rent Control Appellate Authority had gone to the extent of substituting Ext.A18 plan of the landlord for the proposed project, with it's own plan. 52. By several judicial pronouncements it had been crystallised that the landlord is the master of his proposed need and the tenant shall not dictate terms to him. Even if the tenants resort to dictate terms, the court which is in seizin of a petition seeking eviction is not supposed to endorse those. The court's duty in its move to decide on the claim of the landlord for vacant surrender of tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide need is to see whether from the evidence adduced by the landlord, the merits in his claim could be identified. The court has to see on the basis of the evidence let in by the landlord in his venture to establish the bona fide need, whether a conclusion as to the bona fide need could safely be drawn and not to find out alternative ways to accomplish his need and to direct the landlord on the basis to refrain from pursuing with the eviction proceedings. The landlord is the master of the proposed business and the court has only to see whether the proposed venture of the landlord is a genuine, reasonable and justifiable one and that alternative space suitable and convenient enough to accommodate the said business is not available with him. When such a conclusion could possibly be drawn from the evidence adduced by the landlord, the court is not empowered to travel beyond that and direct the tenant to alter or change the plan procured by him and confine his requirement somehow within the limited space available with him. Ext.A18 is nothing but the plan procured by the landlord for constructing a commercial building in Survey No.236/2, i.e. the landed property, sought to be obtained in vacant surrender in the proceedings on hand. It is a plan got prepared to his satisfaction. Even if the tenant had suggested that the construction could be effected by the landlord in the vacant space available with him, the court shall not sit blindly to endorse the said suggestion. The court shall take an independent view in the matter. It is a plan got prepared to his satisfaction. Even if the tenant had suggested that the construction could be effected by the landlord in the vacant space available with him, the court shall not sit blindly to endorse the said suggestion. The court shall take an independent view in the matter. Once the bona fide need of the landlord is found to be established from the evidence adduced by him, and the tenant totally failed to fit his claim for protection within the ambit of the 1st and 2nd provisos, the court shall not go ahead to dictate terms to the landlord in tune with the suggestions rendered by the tenant. After finding that the proposed need of the landlord is a bona fide one, and the claim of the tenant for protection under the provisos, as not established, the court ought to have passed an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, the court shall not refrain from passing an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. But, it shall always refrain from issuing directions to the landlord as was done by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the case on hand. 53. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is manifestly erred and unjustified in passing the impugned order, declining eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority has set aside the order of the Rent Control Court under challenge not on any statutory backing, but strictly on unreasonable and unjustifiable grounds. The Appellate Authority, in fact has assumed the role of an architect and acted strictly in tune with the proposal of the tenant that the construction could be carried out in the limited vacant space available with the landlord and thereby avoiding eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises. 54. The court in seizin of a rent control petition, either the original Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, are not supposed to embrace the suggestions made by the tenant blindly and then to substitute the same with that of the landlord. As appellate authority, it shall evaluate the order of the Rent Control Court in the background of the evidence available to see whether it is tainted with illegality, impropriety or perversity and on finding so, to interfere with and correct it. As appellate authority, it shall evaluate the order of the Rent Control Court in the background of the evidence available to see whether it is tainted with illegality, impropriety or perversity and on finding so, to interfere with and correct it. The appellate authority has only to see whether the reasoning of the Rent Control Court is a probable one in the backdrop of the evidence adduced by the landlord. The authority under Section 18 of the Act shall not be exercised by the appellate authority to substitute the reasoning of the Rent Control Court with another plausible reasoning of its own and when the reasoning of the Rent Control Court, based on the evidence on record is a plausible one and not patently perverse, as was done in the case on hand. The Rent Control Appellate Authority appears to have gone even beyond the case set forth by the tenant in the case on hand. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found fault with the landlord in not procuring and producing the estimate indicative of the funds required for the proposed construction. It also found fault with the landlord, in not taking measures to avail loan and renew the plan and the licence, the period of which has already been expired. The appellate authority failed to identify the bona fides in the claim from the materials already marked in evidence by the landlord. 55. In the case on hand, the landlord's oral evidence is available which states cogently the relevant aspects of the need as averred by him in the Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction. Exts.A18 and A19 would show that some primary measures have been undertaken by him in his pursuit to materialise the proposed need. Exts.A17 and A17(a) to (m) and A20, are produced to establish the availability of funds to meet the preliminary expenses of the new construction. One among the sons of the landlord as PW2 has also tendered oral evidence to subscribe his version that the vacant surrender of the tenanted premises was required for the commencement of the proposed project. PW2 has also categorically stated about his intention to join the proposed project, which PW1 is venturing to start after obtaining the tenanted premises in vacant surrender. These aspects, undoubtedly proclaim that the landlord was cherishing a desire in mind to commence the proposed business and had already taken some measures to materialise it. PW2 has also categorically stated about his intention to join the proposed project, which PW1 is venturing to start after obtaining the tenanted premises in vacant surrender. These aspects, undoubtedly proclaim that the landlord was cherishing a desire in mind to commence the proposed business and had already taken some measures to materialise it. Procuring of estimate and availing of loan are nothing but steps towards materialisation of the proposed construction. There is no logic in stating that the bona fides in the claim is totally defeated for want of production of the estimate, non-availing of loan and non-commencement of the proposed construction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had gone unmindful of the fact that the procurement of loan and estimate are not difficult tasks in the present scenario. Those are easy affairs. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had also gone disregard of the pathetic plight of a landlord who after availing huge amount as loan and started construction on expectation that he would get vacant surrender of the tenanted premises, later on was declined with such an order by the court. Attainment of an order of eviction depends on how the landlord would be able to establish his claim. 56. In the case on hand, the landlord has spoken in the box that vacant surrender of the tenanted premises in the building is required by him to construct a new building, to accommodate his dream project of hotel cum boarding and lodging business. He has also spoken about the positive measures he had taken as initial gestures towards commencement of the proposed project. The basic requisites are procured as evidenced by Exts.A18 and A19. As a prime gesture towards materialisation of the proposed project he had also shifted his residence to another building. As per Ext.A18 plan the space occupied by the residential building is also required for the proposed construction to be carried out by the landlord. He also got one among his son examined as PW2 to convince the court that he has the necessary support and co-operation from him to commence with the proposed business. The evidence of PW2 is very much supportive to the landlord as himself has expressed his intention to join the venture once vacant surrender of the premises is obtained. He also got one among his son examined as PW2 to convince the court that he has the necessary support and co-operation from him to commence with the proposed business. The evidence of PW2 is very much supportive to the landlord as himself has expressed his intention to join the venture once vacant surrender of the premises is obtained. He has also established by producing Exts.A17, 17(a) to (m) and A20 that some funds are with him to start with the construction of the building. PW1 was elaborately cross-examined on the oral as well as the documentary evidence let in by him. But, despite the efforts of the counsel representing the tenants, his credence was not shaken. Therefore, credible material pieces of evidence are available for the court in seizin of the eviction petitions to convincingly arrive at a conclusion about the bona fides in the claim of the landlord. The Rent Control Court has appreciated those material pieces of evidence as indicators of the preliminary measures bona fidely undertaken by him towards the dream project and accordingly, ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority has acted in a highly illegal and unreasonable manner while upturning the reasoning of the Rent Control Court and reversing the order of eviction. When the landlord has a definite idea that his dream project would be materialised in a manner to his satisfaction and when it is discernible from the evidence adduced that the initial measures to start with the project has already been undertaken by him, the court shall not direct him to be satisfied with the limited space already available with him. Hotel cum boarding and lodging business could not flourish well by merely accommodating the structure of the building within the limited space available. It needs parking space, space for gardening as well as access from the public road. These are matters of concern for the landlord while venturing to start a new project, like the one on hand. When the landlord had approached the court with a plan got prepared to his satisfaction, it is improper and unjust for it to direct him to confine his construction in the limited vacant space already available with him by modifying the plan and be satisfied with that. It is like dictating terms to the landlord. When the landlord had approached the court with a plan got prepared to his satisfaction, it is improper and unjust for it to direct him to confine his construction in the limited vacant space already available with him by modifying the plan and be satisfied with that. It is like dictating terms to the landlord. The Rent Control Appellate Authority undoubtedly has traversed into the wisdom of the landlord which it is not empowered to do under the Act. 57. Despite the availability of the material pieces of evidence as discussed hereinabove, the Rent Control Appellate Authority arrived at a finding that non-production of estimate and non-availing of loan have a bearable adverse impact on the bona fide need as claimed by the landlord. The Rent Control Appellate Authority did not advert to the available evidence while arriving at such a finding. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has not expressed any doubt about the genuineness of any of the documentary evidence let in by the landlord as aforesaid. Going by the impugned judgment, we are convinced that description doubting the genuineness of the documentary evidence on record is not made either by the Rent Control Court or by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, those are only to be relied upon. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found those evidence as insufficient to establish the bona fides in the claim of the landlord. In the view of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, estimate and particulars regarding the loan availed are valid pieces of documentary evidence, which if produced would have established the bona fides in the need projected by the landlord and non-production of those has a serious bearing on the bona fides required to be established by the landlord. 58. In this connection, it is relevant to have a discussion on the usage of the words 'bona fide need' in Section 11(3) of the Act. The meaning of the words 'bona fide need' contained in Section 11(3) has to be understood in the context in which it was incorporated by the legislature. What is contemplated by Section 11(3) was that a landlord in bona fide need to start a project after obtaining the land in vacant surrender by the tenants of the tenanted premises, is bound to establish the bona fides in his need to the court. What is contemplated by Section 11(3) was that a landlord in bona fide need to start a project after obtaining the land in vacant surrender by the tenants of the tenanted premises, is bound to establish the bona fides in his need to the court. Therefore, merely expressing the desire without doing some acts of affirmative nature followed thereby to make it a bona fide need, a landlord will not succeed in a claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The court has to see whether from the evidence let in by the landlord, a conclusion could possibly be drawn that the need projected by the landlord is a bona fide one or on the contrary, only a ruse for eviction. It is clear from the order of the Rent Control Court that such a conclusion was drawn and eviction was ordered under Section 11(3) of the Act. The order was passed by the Rent Control Court after evaluating the entire evidence on record and there is nothing to doubt its reasoning. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court on the bona fide need and order of eviction passed under Section 11(3), on appreciation of the evidence in the wrong perspective. For the reason, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is unsustainable. The reversal of the order of eviction under Section 11(3) by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is highly unjustified and is liable to be set aside. 59. The Act was enacted with the prime object to protect the tenants against the exploitation of the building owners. It is therefore that the 1st and 2nd provisos have been incorporated in Section 11(3) to protect the tenants. In the case on hand, the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur has found in its order in the petition seeking eviction that the tenant had thoroughly failed to establish the 1st and 2nd provisos and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenants from the tenanted premises under Section 11(3) of the Act. The order was taken up in challenge in appeal only by the tenants. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court on bona fide need and did not interfere with the finding on the provisos. Against the judgment of the appellate authority, the landlord alone had come up in Revision. The order was taken up in challenge in appeal only by the tenants. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court on bona fide need and did not interfere with the finding on the provisos. Against the judgment of the appellate authority, the landlord alone had come up in Revision. Therefore, the affirmative finding of the Rent Control Court on both the provisos remained unchallenged and has attained finality. 60. As stated earlier, Rent Control Revisions 351/2015, 62/2016 and 61/2016 had been preferred by the tenants. It is pertinent to note that the challenge in the Revision Petition No.351/2015 was mainly against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. According to the tenants, the authorities below on a wrong appreciation of evidence found merits in the contention of the landlord that the tenants have acquired possession of some other building in the city, town or village. 61. In the case on hand, before the Rent Control Court, the tenant in RCP No.10/2008 got himself examined as RW5. He was conducting the business in jewellery in the tenanted premises. It was brought to light in evidence by the landlord during cross examination of RW5 that several rooms in a building namely 'P.V. Building' situated near to the tenanted premises are available in his ownership. According to RW5, all rooms in the said building are occupied by tenants and in one among them, his brother is conducting 'P.V. Textiles'. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C5 report has stated that room No. V/555 wherein a business by name 'Crancanoor Jewellery' was conducted earlier was remained closed at the time of her inspection and a board exhibiting, shifting of the shop was hanged therein. RW5 has stated to the Advocate Commissioner that the tenanted premises was taken on rent by him from the landlord and he is continuing in possession of the same. He has also undertaken to produce the rent receipts. But he failed to produce the receipts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Rent Control Court found merits in the contention of the landlord that the vacant possession of a suitable room was available with RW5. 62. He has also undertaken to produce the rent receipts. But he failed to produce the receipts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Rent Control Court found merits in the contention of the landlord that the vacant possession of a suitable room was available with RW5. 62. According to RW5, the room found as available vacant with him was in his ownership even at the inception of tenancy itself and therefore, the authorities below ought to have declined to pass an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. According to him, Section 11(4) (iii) contemplates acquisition of a building after the commencement of the proceedings seeking eviction. In the backdrop of the said contention raised, Section 11 (4)(iii) is apposite to be extracted hereunder : "Sec-11(4) - A landlord may apply to the rent control court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, - (iii) - If the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village; or........" 63. Going by the provision, even if the tenant has already in his possession or later on acquires possession of or puts up a building in the city, town or village and if the building that comes to his possession or puts up by him, is reasonably sufficient for his requirements and when the landlord successfully establishes the same, he would be entitled to get an order of eviction under the said Section. Therefore, it is clear that the Section does not contemplate a circumstance as pleaded by the tenant to decline an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. On the contrary, the Section provides for a circumstance against the tenant who has already in possession of a building or subsequently acquires possession of one, or construct a new building, to decline an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act in his disfavour. In the case on hand, RW5 failed to establish that the room found vacant by the Advocate Commissioner is still occupied by him for conducting the jewellery. Therefore, the landlord in the case on hand has successfully pointed out to the Rent Control Court that RW5 has acquired possession of a vacant room in the Municipal limit, wherein the tenanted premises is situated. 64. Therefore, the landlord in the case on hand has successfully pointed out to the Rent Control Court that RW5 has acquired possession of a vacant room in the Municipal limit, wherein the tenanted premises is situated. 64. That being the position, we do not find any error in the finding of the authorities below and ordering eviction in favour of the landlord under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The said finding has also been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The concurrent findings, are only liable to be confirmed and accordingly, we do so. 65. R.C.R. Nos.61/2016 was filed by the tenant in occupation of the tenanted premises therein. The authorities below have concurrently found entitlement of the landlord for an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, ordered so. The tenant has challenged the concurrent findings of the authorities below for the sole reason that the landlord has failed to establish the requirements under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The claim of the landlord was that the tenant has suitable alternative vacant rooms available in his possession at the relevant time and therefore he is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. 66. The revision petitioner in RCR No.61/2016 is none other than the tenant in RCP No.7/2008. He was conducting an office of a driving school in the tenanted premises. He was examined before the Rent Control Court as RW1. It has come out from his oral evidence that he has another landed property and building adjacent to the tenanted premises in the Kodungallur town itself. RW1 had stated in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination that the building situated in the property is occupied by his daughter. When confronted with an advertisement given by him in the ACV about a driving school within the Municipal limits, he has replied that what is stated therein may not be true to facts. But, no materials are tendered by RW1 to establish his claim that the alternative rooms shown by the landlord as available in his possession are already in occupation either by his daughter or by other tenants. But, no materials are tendered by RW1 to establish his claim that the alternative rooms shown by the landlord as available in his possession are already in occupation either by his daughter or by other tenants. It is based on the said evidence, the Rent Control Court has arrived at a finding regarding acquisition of suitable alternative vacant rooms by the tenant in his possession and accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. It is the said finding that was affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The tenant has not pointed out any reason to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings. 67. The revision petitioner in R.C.R.No.62/2016 is none other than the tenant in R.C.P.No.13/2008. Eviction was sought by the landlord on the ground of cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises continuously for six months without any reasonable cause. The tenant was one among the partners of the business conducted in the tenanted premises in R.C.P. No.11/2008. The tenant in R.C.P. No.6/2008 while examined in the case as RW2 has spoken that he has taken the room in R.C.P. No.13/2008 for the purpose of using the same as a workshop for making gold ornaments. According to him goldsmiths for doing the work in the workshop will be engaged on getting orders of work. The Advocate Commissioner had inspected the said room immediately after the institution of R.C.P.No.13/2008 and filed the report and plan, wherein it was specifically noted that leather items were stored therein. Though RW2 has stated that the said room was used as a workshop, the Advocate Commissioner failed to notice any materials kept therein for the conduct of gold work as stated by him. Therefore, having convinced that the circumstances available as aforesaid indicates non usage of the room and keeping the same as idle, the court below found merit in the contention raised by the landlord regarding cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises in R.C.P.No.13/2008 for six months, without reasonable excuse and ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. The said finding has been confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal preferred from the aforesaid order. Absolutely no reason has been brought to notice by the revision petitioner to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below on cessation of occupation by the tenant of the tenanted premises. 68. The said finding has been confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal preferred from the aforesaid order. Absolutely no reason has been brought to notice by the revision petitioner to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below on cessation of occupation by the tenant of the tenanted premises. 68. We could not notice on a reading of the common judgment under challenge that the aforesaid finding of the authorities below was based on any misreading of the evidence or total want of evidence. The authorities below have arrived at the finding regarding acquisition of building by the tenant and cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises on proper appreciation of available evidence and therefore interference is totally uncalled for. 69. For the foregoing reasons, we have to hold that Revision Petitions preferred as R.C.R. Nos.1 to 9/2016 are to be allowed and RCR Nos. 351/2015, 61/2016 and 62/2016 are to be disallowed. The judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur under Section 11(3) of the Act is set aside. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur under Section 11(3) of the Act is restored. The concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below under Section 11(4) (iii) and 11(4) (v) are confirmed. 70. The respondents in RCR Nos. 1 to 9/2016, who are tenants in RCP Nos. 4, 6 to 13 of 2008 shall surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on or before 25.01.2019. The tenants in the respective Rent Control Petitions shall file an unconditional affidavit before the Rent Control Court, Kodungallur within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, stating that each of them shall surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before 25.01.2019. The tenants shall also pay admitted arrears of rent, if any, is there and shall continue to pay the monthly rent till vacant surrender of the tenanted premises is given to the landlord. Parties shall bear their respective costs.