JUDGMENT : Soumen Sen, C.J. 1. Heard Mr.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, Caveator. 2. A very well-reasoned order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority has been assailed in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the said decision on the ground that both the courts below have misconstrued the evidence with regard to the need of the tenant. The learned counsel has referred to the proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to show that in the event a tenant is able to establish that the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his business carried on such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry out such business, an order of eviction cannot be passed. 3. We have carefully read the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Both the courts, on examination of all the documentary evidence, have arrived at a definite finding that the suit property is not the only source of income for the tenant. Inasmuch as, there was an evidence suggesting that there are suitable buildings in the locality for the revision petitioner to carry out her business. This fact was also not disputed by the revision petitioner. 4. However, the learned counsel has referred to the first proviso to Sec.11(3) to contend that the landlord is in possession of another building of his own in the same city, the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction for eviction on the ground of own occupation unless it is satisfied that for special reasons to be recorded, it is just and proper to do so in the particular facts of the case. 5. The Rent Control Court, in paragraph No.23, has relied upon Ext.X6 and arrived at a finding that, in the instant case, both PW1 and PW2 have justified their intention to start a spare parts shop along with a lathe-cum-workshop and that they can conveniently and effectively utilise the petition schedule room and the remaining space of the building for commencing their respective businesses. Once the requirement is established by the landlord and in the absence of any vacant room available, as rightly pointed out by the Rent Control Court, the tenant has no right to dictate the landlord to carry on the proposed business in the remaining portion of the building. Both the witnesses have stated the special reason for seeking possession of the petition scheduled room, which the trial court as well as the learned Munsiff have found to be special reason. In this regard, the Rent Control Court has relied upon the lack of pleadings with respect to availability of vacant rooms sufficient for the landlord to carry on the proposed business. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of this Court in Vasantha Mallan v. N.S.Aboobaker and Siddiq , 2020 (1) KHC 21 and Dineshan Pillai P.B. v. Joseph @ Jose , 2019 (3) KHC 206 . Insofar as the test to be applied for special reason the Rent Control Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Vinod v. KK.Mujeeb , 2018 (2) KHC 837 . 6. The findings of the Rent Control Court in this regard are reproduced below : “’23. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has got vacant building in her possession. To prove that the respondent had examined RW4 and Ext X6 was marked. In Ext X6 it is mentioned that Petitioner has 4 buildings in her possession. In Ext. X6 it is shown that Building Nos. 24/931, 24/932 and 24/934 are commercial buildings and Building No. 24/933 is a residential building. He argued that it is upon the landlord to state special reasons for not occupying the vacant buildings when eviction is sought for. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that details regarding building was nowhere pleaded in the objection filed by the tenant. At this stage it would be profitable to refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court in Vasantha Mallan V vs. N.S. Aboobaker and Siddiq 2020 (1) KHC 21 wherein emphasis was applied- whether landlord is bound to plead under first proviso, availability of vacant building in his possession? At this stage it would be profitable to refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court in Vasantha Mallan V vs. N.S. Aboobaker and Siddiq 2020 (1) KHC 21 wherein emphasis was applied- whether landlord is bound to plead under first proviso, availability of vacant building in his possession? Held "law does not require landlord to plead that he is in possession of any vacant building and his special reasons for its non-occupation it is up to the tenant alone to take up contention and prove that landlord is in vacant possession of premises". 24. Alike in Dineshan Pillai P.B. v. Joseph @ Jose , 2019(3) KHC 206 wherein it is made clear by Hon'ble High Court that "xxxxxxxxxxx/t is stated that the petitioner has several other buildings. No particular vacant room has been identified or pointed out in the pleadings. We are of the opinion that it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to plead and prove the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord. In the absence of specific pleadings, disclosing the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord, it can be said that the respondent/tenant has not discharged the initial burden of proof under the 1st Proviso to S.11(3) of the Act." 25. In Vinod v. K.K Mujeeb , 2018(2) KHC 837 , Hon'ble High Court held that "Under the first proviso, the Rent Control Court is not empowered to issue a direction against the tenant for vacant surrender of the tenanted premises if the tenant has succeeded in establishing by evidence that the landlord is in possession of a vacant room in the same City, Town or Village and the landlord failed to furnish special reasons for not occupying the same. Therefore, if it is convincingly established by the tenant that vacant room is available in the possession of the landlord, the landlord has to state special reasons, why he has not chosen to occupy the said room for commencing the proposed business. On the failure of the landlord to state reasons for non opting to occupy the same, the Rent Control Court will be empowered to pass an order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Therefore, Special reasons shall come from the landlord. On the failure of the landlord to state reasons for non opting to occupy the same, the Rent Control Court will be empowered to pass an order of eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Therefore, Special reasons shall come from the landlord. It is not the satisfaction of the landlord as to the reasons, that matters but the satisfaction of the Rent Control Court as to its sufficiency, that is decisive in the matter of granting the relief of eviction, Therefore, reasons having been furnished by the landlord, he has no further say, but it is for the Rent Control Court to view the reasons projected by the landlord in the backdrop of the requirement of the proposed business and the suitability of the vacant rooms in the landlord's possession for the same. The first proviso warrants the Rent Control Court to watch the special reasons from the point of view of the landlord and to see whether the reasons justify the landlord's non determination to choose the alternative vacant rooms in his possession or unjustify its determination to opt the tenanted premises for the proposed business. Therefore, would not suffice for the purpose of availing the benefit of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of S. 11, büt cogent and satisfactory reasons must be shown by the landlord to convince the mind of the Court to grant the relief of eviction in his favour." 26. In the instant case both PW1 and PW2 testified that they intend to start spare parts shop along with the Lathe and workshop and they can very well use the Petition Schedule room and the remaining space in the building for starting their proposed business. The tenant did not have the right to dictate the Landlord to carry out the business in the remaining portion alone. It is the choice of the landlord. They have stated the special reason for asking for the possession of Petition Schedule Room and I do find that said special reasons are quite suitable. 27. So in the given facts while analyzing them with precedential laws found that need raised by the petitioner to occupy the premises can only be set to be natural, real, sincere, and honest. They have stated the special reason for asking for the possession of Petition Schedule Room and I do find that said special reasons are quite suitable. 27. So in the given facts while analyzing them with precedential laws found that need raised by the petitioner to occupy the premises can only be set to be natural, real, sincere, and honest. From analyzing those facets discussed above I conclude that the need projected by the petitioner to have the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises is bona fide and that it was untrammeled by the 1™ proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. Point Nos. 3 & 4 are found in favour of the petitioner.” 7. This aspect of the matter was duly considered by the Appellate Authority in paragraph Nos.18, 19 & 20 of the said judgment, which are reproduced below: “18. Another contention raised by the counter- petitioner during trial is that the petitioner has got other vacant buildings and PW2 could start business in any one of those rooms. It has come out from the testimony of RW4 (Municipal Secretary) that the rooms facing the road were converted as commercial rooms and the total commercial area was below 600 sq. ft, in a total area of 1500 sq.ft. In fact, the above contention is not raised in the objection filed by the counter- petitioner. Moreover PWs 1 and 2 have categorically deposed regarding the difficulty to start business in the remaining rooms. It is true that Ext. X6 shows that petitioner has got four buildings in her possession. 19. The primary burden is on the tenant to prove that the landlord who seeks for the former's eviction is in possession of another building in the same city, town or village. If the tenant succeeds in proving the same, the burden shifts to the landlord to give special reason as to why he had not chosen the available building (Refer K.V.Kunhamina v. K.T.Aboobekar Haji 2016 (3) KLT 247 ). In her endevour to prove that the petitioner has other shop rooms in the locality, the counter-petitioner examined RW4. In fact, nothing could be elicited from the testimony of RW4 that any vacant room or building is in the possession of the petitioners for conducting any business. In her endevour to prove that the petitioner has other shop rooms in the locality, the counter-petitioner examined RW4. In fact, nothing could be elicited from the testimony of RW4 that any vacant room or building is in the possession of the petitioners for conducting any business. In other words, there is no evidence at all which would show the availability of the building for conducting a business as averred by the petitioner. 20. Moreover the counter-petitioner has no case in her pleading that the petitioner has in her possession another building of her own in her possession in the same locality, city, town or village. To put it otherwise, the counter-petitioner/tenant failed to discharge the burden cast upon him as per the first Proviso to S.11(3) of the BLRC Act. Therefore the question of showing special reason by the landlord for not choosing such building does not arise at all.” 8. The concurrent findings of facts based on evidence unless appears to the court to be perverse should be accepted and more so, when the court is exercising a revisional jurisdiction. It is well-settled that on the same set of evidence, a different finding is possible is not a reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court. Moreover, this revision is arising out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority recording concurrence to the finding of the Rent Control Court. 9. At this stage, an oral prayer is made on behalf of the revision petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today. The learned counsel for the landlord in all fairness has accepted the said proposal. 10. Accordingly, six months’ time is given to vacate the premises, subject to the revision petitioner filing an affidavit before the executing court within a week from today, to the aforesaid effect. For the period under occupation in terms of this order, the revision petitioner shall continue to pay the occupational charges as already determined in the rent control proceedings. This RCR stands disposed of.