addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court carefully. It appears to us that the question, which seriously arises for consideration in this revision, is whether the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 and whether the finding by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 warrants interference. Even in cases where the landlord is in vacant possession of a building, eviction order under Section 11 (3) can be granted to the landlord if there are special reasons to justify the eviction order. In the instant case on going through the rent control petition ,what we find is that the landlord has given certain reasons as to why the petition schedule building is most suitable for the need projected. But, it is a fact that the landlord has not disclosed the availability of other buildings with the landlord and much less building numbers 370, 363 and 364. It was submitted before us by Mr.Sajid that building number 370 alone is under the vacant possession of the landlord. Since that building is in the first floor, the same may be the special
