S. Sankarasubban, J.

This revision is filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 83 of 1989.

Petitioners in R.C.P. No. 124 of 1985 are the petitioners in this revision petition. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

2. There are two petitioners in the R.C.P. The bonafide need alleged was that the first petitioner was doing business in Bombay on the road side. The Bombay Corporation has prohibited such vending and hence, he has to come back to Thalassery and he wants to start a business in the room occupied by the respondent. Further contention was that the respondent/ tenant is conducting a cycle shop in the room. But he is using it in such a way that there is diminution in its value and utility. It is on the above allegation that the petition was filed.

3. The tenant filed objection in which it is stated that the bonafide need alleged is not true. Petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers. According to the tenant both of them were doing business at Bombay and the business is being conducted even now. According to him, the arrangement between petitioners 1 and 2 is that when one of them returns to home, the other should look after the business. It was further contended that notice was issued by the petitioners. There was mediation by merchants association. There the petitioners wanted only an increase in the rent. The tenant was willing to increase the monthly rent by Rs. 60/-. But the landlords wanted it at Rs. 80/ -. The tenant further contended that the landlords have got another building in which they can do business. The other contention was that he is earning for his livelihood in the business conducted. So far as the ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act is concerned, the tenant contended that he has not committed any waste in the building. The cement on the floor has developed cracks due to non-maintenance. So also the plaster on the walls was worn out. It was further contended by the tenant that the R.C.P. was filed nearly 11/2 years after the issue of notice. This itself will show that there is no bonafides in filing the petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, parties went for trial. Exts. Al to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioners. Exts. BI to B3 were filed on the side of the respondent. Ext. Cl is the commission report. PWs.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the petitioners, while RWs.1 and 2 were marked on the side of the respondent. The Rent Control Court found that the bonafide need alleged is not true. Further, it also held against the landlords regarding the ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. But it found that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the Second Proviso. Thus, the R.C.P. was dismissed. The landlords preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No. 83 of 1989. The Rent Control Appellate Authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is against that the present revision is filed.

5. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. K.V. Sohan and learned counsel for the respondent Sri. T.A. Ramadasan.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far as the ground of bonafide need is concerned, both the courts had made a wrong approach. According to the counsel, both the courts were carried away by the fact that there was a delay in filing the petition. He submitted that merely because some time lapsed between the issue of notice and the filing of the petition, it does not mean that there is no bonafide need. Learned counsel submitted there was mediation by the merchants association and the petitioners thought that the respondent will vacate the premises. Hence, they waited for some time. Regarding the ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act is concerned, learned counsel brought to our notice a decision reported in Gurbachan Singh & Ann v. Shivalak Rubber I