1. Tenants are the revision petitioners. R.C.P.No.176 of 1998 was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein for eviction of the tenants under Ss.11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Referring to the first limb of the second proviso to S.11(3), it was held that tenant is eking his livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises. Tenant was however found not entitled to the benefit of the second limb of the second proviso to S.11(3). Matter was taken up in appeal by the tenant by filing R.C.A.No.104 of 2001. Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Tenant took up the matter before this court in C.R.P.No.920 of 2002. A Division Bench of this court while disposing of the revision petition, held as follows:

"We see no ground to interfere with the finding as to bonafide and with regard to application of first proviso as we have held that the building said to have been in possession of the landlords is not suitable for the intended business. Therefore, finding under the first proviso to S. 11(3) requires no interference in a revisional proceeding."

The Bench however remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the finding on the second proviso to S.11(3). Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2003 and held that the tenants have failed to discharge the burden under the second proviso to S. 11(3) of the Act and consequently order of the Rent Control Court granting eviction was upheld under S.11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same tenants have filed this revision petition.

2. Sri. K. Ramakumar, counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, contended that since the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority found that tenants are eking livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises, this court in revisional jurisdiction is not justified in upsetting that finding. Counsel also submitted that there was no challenge as such against the said finding by the landlord. Counsel submitted that in effect in the remand order this court only directed the Appellate Authority to examine the finding on the second limb of the second proviso to S.11(3). We find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel. In the remand order, Division Bench of this court, after discussing both the limbs of the second proviso to S.11(3), felt that the Appellate Authority has to examine both the limbs of the second proviso to S. 11(3). Petitioners are bound by the remand order. Therefore, Appellate Authority is justified in examining both the limbs of the second proviso to S.11(3). Further the finding that the building is bonafide required by the landlord has also become final by the order of the Division Bench of this court in CRP No. 920 of 2002, and that the question directed to be considered by the Appellate Authority was whether the tenants are entitled to the benefit of both the limbs of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. We are therefore concerned only with the question whether tenants have discharged the burden under the second proviso to S.11(3).

3. With regard to the said question, we may refer to essential facts. We will refer to the parties according to their status in the rent control petition. Petition schedule building bearing C.C.Nos.40/6925 and 40/6926 was rented out to the tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.900/-. The building is situated on the side of M.G. Road, Ernakulam where' tenants are conducting hotel by name "Padma Cafe". The building is bonafide required by petitioners 2, 3 and 4 who do not have any business or employment of their own and decided to start a business in stationery and plastic wares and for their own occupation. First petitioner is doing business in stationery and has the financial capacity to invest large amounts t