K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and that of the Appellate Authority under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). According to the tenant, the lease was in favour of his father in the year 1939. The rent fixed is Rs. 50/- per day. The landlady contended that she has three sons, one is employed abroad, another son Kunhikammu is conducting a business of STD Booth in a stair case room in the same building and another son Hamza Koya is unemployed. The landlady contended that her two children and grand children are dependent on her for the purpose of the petition schedule building. The bona fide need put forward is that her children and grand children want to conduct a bakery and fast food business in the petition schedule room and in a room in the up-stair portion. It was contended that the business of the STD Booth does not generate sufficient income for the livelihood of Kunhikammu. The landlady also contended that the tenant is having his own business in his own building consisting of three rooms where he conducts furniture business under the name and style "Malabar Furniture Mart".

2. The tenant contended that the lease was in the year 1939 in favour of his father and after his fathers death, he continued the business. He depends for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are no suitable buildings available in the locality to accommodate his business. The bona fide need put forward by the landlady was disputed. The tenant also stated that "Malabar Furniture Mart" run by him is situated two furlongs away from the petition schedule building.

3. The Rent Control Court held that the case of the tenant that the lease was in the year 1939 was not proved by any acceptable evidence. Though the tenant challenged that finding before the Appellate Court, apparently it was not pursued.

4. As regards the bona fide need, the Rent Control Court found that it is genuine. Kunhikammu had experience while he was working in a gulf country and doing business in the same lines. He abandoned his business abroad and came back to India. At present, he is in occupation of the stair case room and he is running STD Booth. The Rent Control Court found that the children and grand children of the landlady are depending on her for the purpose of the petition schedule building and that the need is genuine. The Appellate Authority, on facts, confirmed this finding.

5. A contention was put forward by the tenant that the landlady was not examined before the Rent Control Court to prove the bona fide need and also the fact of dependency of her children and grand children on her. The Rent Control Court, relying on the decision in JCR Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. A.J. Varghese and Others, , held that it is sufficient if the family member for whose occupation the Rent Control Petition is filed gives evidence as a witness.

6. The Rent Control Court found that it is an admitted case that the tenant is running "Malabar Furniture Mart". According to the tenant, that business premises is situated two furlongs away. The Commissioner reported that the said building is situated on the opposite side of the petition schedule building. Both the Courts below relied on the Commissioners report and the evidence in the case in that regard to hold that the tenant has acquired possession of another building in the same village, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. This finding under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

7. Insofar as the contention raised by the tenant that he is entitled to the benefit of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant having another business and he having not produced the relevant records to prove his income, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority concurred with this view.

8. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a room in the up-stair portion was in the occupation of a tenant and the landlady had filed a Rent Control Petition to evict the tenant. But that Rent Control Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Senior Counsel contends that this fact is sufficient to hold that the bona fide need put forward by the landlady is not genuine.

9. Sri. V.K. Beeran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the tenant who conducts business in the up-stair portion and the landlady settled their disputes and accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was withdrawn. Whatever that be, the question to be decided is whether the need put forward by the landlady is genuine. It is not established that without the up-stair portion a bakery or fast food business cannot be run. No such case is put forward by the tenant. The landlady also has no case that without room in the up-stair portion, the proposed business cannot be conducted. We do not think that the bona fide need should be doubted on these grounds.

10. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the landladys son is admittedly in occupation of the stair case room in the building, the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3) of the Act is not maintainable and the landlady has to apply under Section 11(8) of the Act. Section 11(8) provides that a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. The requirement of sub-section (8) of Section 11 is that the landlord must be in possession of a part of the building in which the tenanted building is situated. In the present case, the landlady does not want to occupy the petition schedule building. Eviction is sought for conducting business by her dependents. One of the dependents is in occupation of the stair case room. The occupation of a part of the building, which is contemplated under sub-section (8) is occupation by the landlord and not by the dependent of the landlord. Therefore, even if the dependent of the landlord is in occupation of a part of a building, that does not preclude the landlord from making an application under Section 11(3) of the Act for eviction of the tenanted building for the need of his dependents. Unless the landlord is in occupation of a part of the building and the tenanted building is required for additional accommodation for his personal use, Section 11(8) of the Act would have no application. Even if the dependent for whose benefit eviction is sought is in possession of a part of the building, that is not a ground to deny the landlord his right to apply under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the tenant, that the application under Section 11(3) of the Act is not maintainable and only Section 11(8) of the Act applies is unsustainable.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order and the judgment of the authorities below, warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. The Rent Control Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the time up to 31/10/2014 can be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building.

12. In the result, while dismissing the Rent Control Revision, we grant time to the petitioner/tenant till 31/10/2014 to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that the petitioner/tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within one month from today unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building and also on condition that the petitioner/tenant shall pay the arrears of rent within one month. The petitioner/tenant shall also pay the rent calculated for a month on the 10th of the succeeding months till he vacates the petition schedule building. If the petitioner/tenant complies with the conditions mentioned above, the order of eviction shall be kept in abeyance till 31/10/2014. If the petitioner/tenant fails to comply with the conditions, the landlady would be entitled to take out execution proceedings forthwith.