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 appeal was filed by the landlords. The Appellate Court found that the petition was maintainable. It also found that the ground of eviction under section 11 (3) of the Act was proved. But it found against the petitioners for eviction under section 11 (4) (i) and section 11 (4) (ii) of the Act. Then the Appellate Court allowed eviction under section 11(4) of the Act. It is against that these revisions are filed by the landlords and tenant.

4. Before going to the merits of the discussions and evidence, we shall extract the relevant facts in this case. There are two petitioners in the Rent Control Petition viz., Dr. K.V. Ittimani Moolapat and K.V. Thomas. First petitioner was represented by the second petitioner, the power of attorney holder. Tenant is the Ernakulam District Wholesale Co-operative Consumers Stores Ltd. According to the petitioners, they are the owners and landlords of Moolapat Buildings facing M.G. Road having Door Nos. 2238 and 2239 of Cochin Corporation. These buildings were let out to the respondent - tenant in the year 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. The tenant was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- each to the petitioners. The rental arrangement was only for four years. The period of rental arrangement expired on 10. 12. 1971. By letter dated 25.9.1972, the respondent informed the petitioner that the respondent is trying to get a suitable plot or building to house its store and requesting for an extension of the rental arrangement for a further period of one year with effect from 10.12.1972 and the rental arrangement was provisionally extended up to 10.12.1973.

5. According to the petitioners, the respondent opened the RCC work on the terrace of the top floor of the building and fixed a neon lamp board without the petitioners' consent spoiling the beauty and strength of the building. Further alterations were made in all the floors of the building without the permission of the petitioners. The tenant has caused damages to some portions of the floors and staircase by mishandling heavy boxes and other heavy articles. It is further stated that the petitioners bonafide need the petition schedule building for their own occupation to start an institute for home management with the objective of imparting training to young man and woman in several fields and Secretarial courses including the usage of computer and job oriented courses in the field of beauty therapy. These courses mainly meant for woman and man of the socially backward sections. The petitioners want the above building bonafide for the abovesaid purpose. It was further stated that the project will be started under the supervision of the wife of the second petitioner, Mrs. Mary Thomas. They have prepared a project for starting the institute. It was further stated that the respondent is