ORDER : P.B. Suresh Kumar, J. The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), is the petitioner in this revision petition. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction, both under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv). The tenant appealed against the decision of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority, though set aside the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv), affirmed the order under Section 11(3). The tenant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority and hence, this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant as also the learned counsel for the landlord. 3. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the decision of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of eviction under Section 11(3) suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 4. The landlord is a constituent body of Nair Service Society. They have an office in a property owned by them which is situated on the eastern side of Alleppy -Thanneermukkom public road. The landlord is also running a school in the property. There exists a line building consisting of three shop rooms in the property of the landlord abutting the public road. The office of the landlord and the school are situated behind the line building. As the line building covers almost the entire road frontage of the property, the entry to the office of the landlord and the school run by them is through a passage that exists on the northern side of the line building. The tenant is occupying the centre room in the line building. The case set out by the landlord in the eviction petition is that they intend to convert the room occupied by the tenant for a proper and easy entrance to their office and to have a parking place for the vehicles of those who come to their office and to the school. The tenant filed objections to the eviction petition contending mainly that the need set out is not bona fide, as a convenient parking place cannot be created by converting the tenanted premises as the entrance to the office and school of the landlord. It was repelling the said contention that the authorities below ordered eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (3). 5. It was repelling the said contention that the authorities below ordered eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (3). 5. The learned counsel for the tenant pointed out that there was an attempt on the part of the landlord to evict the tenant forcefully from the premises and the same was prevented by the tenant by instituting a suit against the landlord as O.S.No.680 of 2017 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. According to him, it is to wreak vengeance on the tenant for having instituted the said suit, the landlord instituted the proceedings against him. The learned counsel reinforced the said submission pointing out that there is a reference about the said case in Ext.A4 resolution adopted by them for instituting the proceedings. It was argued by the learned counsel that though it is stated by the landlord in the eviction petition that it is based on the advice given by a 'vasthu' consultant that they have decided to form a new entrance to their office building through the tenanted premises, they have not examined the 'vasthu' consultant in the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, non-examination of the 'vasthu' consultant by the landlord on their side is fatal to the case set out by them. It was also asserted by the learned counsel for the tenant, placing reliance on Exts.C1 and C2 reports of the Advocate Commissioners appointed in the proceedings that vehicular access cannot be ensured to the property of the landlord by converting the tenanted premises as an entrance to their office and school. Similarly, it was asserted by the learned counsel that a parking place for vehicles cannot be created by such a conversion. In short, the submission made by the learned counsel was that the landlord has failed to establish that the need set out for eviction is a bona fide one. 6. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the tenant. 7. Ext.A3 is the resolution adopted by the general body of the landlord to form a new entrance to its office directly from the public road by converting the tenanted premises. Ext.A3 resolution which was taken on 01.05.2017 reads thus : Another resolution was also adopted by the general body of the landlord for the very same purpose later, on 05.10.2017. Ext.A3 is the resolution adopted by the general body of the landlord to form a new entrance to its office directly from the public road by converting the tenanted premises. Ext.A3 resolution which was taken on 01.05.2017 reads thus : Another resolution was also adopted by the general body of the landlord for the very same purpose later, on 05.10.2017. It is in terms of the said resolution that the Secretary of the landlord was authorised to initiate proceedings against the tenant. Ext.A4 resolution dated 05.10.2017 reads thus : It is seen from the National Judicial Data Grid that O.S.No.680 of 2017 was one instituted on 07.07.2017. Ext.A3 resolution is one adopted much before the institution of the said suit. The contention of the tenant that it is to wreak vengeance on him for having instituted the suit aforesaid that the landlord has decided to form an entrance to their office through the tenanted premises is therefore one taken without any basis. True, there is a reference about a case instituted by the tenant against the landlord in Ext.A4 resolution. Merely for the reason that there is a reference about the case instituted by the tenant against the landlord in Ext.A4 resolution, it cannot be said that the proceedings against the tenant has been initiated by the landlord maliciously. 8. The pleadings of the landlord as regards the bona fide need contains in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the eviction petition. The pleadings read thus : (3) The present new Executive Committee of the Karayogam took charge in February 2017. Since the business in the three rooms in the line building, wherein the scheduled room is also situated, are not well running and as the organizational activities in the Karayogam are not proper for the past several years, a competent and reliable "Vasthu Pandit" was consulted. He identified that there is lack of proper air passage to the old Karayogam building just on the backside of the line building and that, that building is hidden by this line building. He identified that there is lack of proper air passage to the old Karayogam building just on the backside of the line building and that, that building is hidden by this line building. Based on his advice, on 01-05-2017, the General Body of the Petitioner Karayogam decided to convert the Central portion of the line building which constitute the scheduled room, as the main entrance to the Karayogam and the School premises in that compound, closing the present entrance on the northern most side of the line building, which is most inconvenient for vehicular entrance, parking of the vehicles and the ingress and egress of the people and students coming to these premises. x x x x x (5) The petitioner Karayogam is badly in need of the scheduled room in the middle portion of the line building and the petitioner bonafidely intends to convert the same as a passage to the Karayogam and the School run by the Karayogam, after removing the shutter in front of the room and demolishing the wall on the eastern side. This will enable to have a proper and easy entrance to the Karayogam compound and have a parking place for the vehicles of those who come to the Karayogam/School. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioners appointed in the proceedings. In Ext.C1 report, the Advocate Commissioner has stated that there is no convenient parking place for the office of the landlord and also for the school run by them and if a new entrance is created through the tenanted premises, the same could be used for vehicular access to the office of the landlord. But, it is seen from Ext.C2 report of the Advocate Commissioner that the office of the landlord is situated just 1.5 meters away from the line building and if the tenanted premises is converted as an entrance, only one car could be parked in that place. In Ext.C2 report, the Advocate Commissioner has also stated that if the landlord intends to have a better parking place, they can achieve the same by widening the existing passage, after demolishing a portion of the northern shop room in the line building. In the said report, the Advocate Commissioner has also stated that the width of the existing passage to the office building is only 2.15 meters, whereas the width of the tenanted premises is 3.55 meters. In the said report, the Advocate Commissioner has also stated that the width of the existing passage to the office building is only 2.15 meters, whereas the width of the tenanted premises is 3.55 meters. A rough sketch of the property of the landlord and buildings therein is attached to Ext.C2 report. A close scrutiny of the reports of the Advocate Commissioners would indicate beyond doubt that as pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.C2 report, a convenient parking place cannot be created for the landlord by converting the tenanted premises as an entrance to the property. As noted, the need set out by the landlord is not only to have a parking space for vehicles, but also to have a proper and easy entrance to their office. It is seen that as of now, there is no direct access to the office of the landlord from the public road. The access to the office of the landlord from the public road is through the narrow passage on the northern side of the line building. The width of the said passage is only 2.15 meters and the width of the tenanted premises is 3.55 meters. In other words, if an entrance is formed through the tenanted premises as proposed by the landlord, the landlord can certainly have a convenient access to their office directly from the public road. It cannot be said that for a body like the landlord, the need set out by them is a mere desire. According to us, the need aforesaid is a real and natural one. Merely for the reason that a more convenient parking place could be created by the landlord within their compound by widening the existing passage to their office, it cannot be said that the need is not bona fide. It is all the more so since, the proceedings are initiated based on the decision of the general body of the landlord consisting of several persons. Prima facie, such decisions would not be taken by a collective body, if the need is not a real one. As revealed from the resolution dated 01.05.2017, the landlord has obtained the advice of a 'vasthu' consultant before taking such a decision. Prima facie, such decisions would not be taken by a collective body, if the need is not a real one. As revealed from the resolution dated 01.05.2017, the landlord has obtained the advice of a 'vasthu' consultant before taking such a decision. Merely for the reason that the said decision was taken after obtaining the advice of a 'vasthu' consultant, it cannot be said that it is obligatory for the landlord to examine the 'vasthu' consultant to prove their bona fides of the need. Needless to say, the concurrent decisions of the authorities below on the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be said to be illegal, irregular and improper in any manner. The revision petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.