Sankarasubban, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.86 of 2002 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, T.A. Jamal filed the petition for eviction. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition Annie George is the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition and Vasudevan is the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition.

2. The husband of the petitioner late Dr.O.A.George was conducting a Medical Clinic under the name and style "A.G. Hospital". The petitioner is the tenant of the building No.XI/100. The said building is situated in the first floor in a large building complex. The second respondent Vasudevan is the tenant in occupation of a separate building bearing No.XI/101 of Kalamassery Municipality. The Rent Control Petition was filed for evicting the petitioner for the purpose of residence of the landlord. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the petition was filed for eviction for commercial purpose, vi., starting a business in Ice cream Parlour or fruit juice stall and a Fast Food counter. Thus, a single petition was filed by the landlord for evicting the two tenants.

3. The petitioner in the Civil Petition filed objections raising two grounds against the maintainability of the petition. According to her, the petition is bad for misjoinder of cause of auction. The petitioner further raised the contention denying title of the landlord. These two issues were heard together by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Court passed order on 16.2.2002. According to the Rent Control Court, the first issue regarding the misjoinder was decided earlier and hence, it was not necessary to decide it later. So far as the second question is concerned, it held that the denial of title is not bonafide.

4. Against the above order, the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition preferred R.C.A.No.86 of 2002. The Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the petition. It is against the above order that the present revision is filed.

5. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.P.Ramnath and learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Suresh.

6. Sri.Ramnath contended that the order passed by the court below is not correct. According to him, there are two cause of auctions; one against the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition and the other is against the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition. The landlord wanted eviction of the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition on the ground that he wants that building for the purpose of his residence and wants to evict the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition on the ground that he wants the building for the purpose of starting Ice cream Parlour, etc. There are two different tenancies and two different tenants. The Appellate Court took the view that the contention is a technical one and that the Rent Control Petition was filed in 1999. There was no misjoinder of cause of auction.

7. In Sulthan v. Mohanan - 2000(3) K.L.T. 338, a Division Bench consisting of Balasubramanyan,J. (as he then was) and Hassan Pillai,J., considered the question with regard to the ground of reconstruction. There, this Court held as follows: "On principle it appears to us that when a landlord seeks eviction on the ground that the building needs reconstruction, what the landlord is projecting is the need to reconstruct the entire structure and not some of the rooms in the building, which could also qualify as a building as per the definition contained in the Act. Normally a landlord - unless there be exceptional cases - cannot ask for reconstruction of only one room in the very many rooms in a building or a structure. He could only ask for a renovation as provided under S.11(5) of the Act. So when a reconstruction is involved with the corresponding obligation in the landlord to offer the reconstructed building to the tenant or ten