Both these Civil Revision petitions are filed against the order in R.C.A. No.44 of 2001 of the District Court, Ernakulam. While the tenant is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3384 of 2001, landlords are the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 218 of 2002. Original Proceeding is R.C.P. No. 57 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 11 (3) bonafide use, Section 11 (4) (i) subletting and Section (4) (ii) using the building in such a manner as to reduce its utility and value, of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. Before the trial court, it was contended by the tenant that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable. The tenant also contended that there are two buildings, which were taken on rent and a single petition is not maintainable. This contention was accepted. Further, the Rent Control Court held against the petitioners- landlords under section 11 (3) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Act. It allowed the claim under subletting. But since it found that the petition was not maintainable, the petition was dismissed.

3. Before the Appellate Court, as already stated, an appea