P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The respondent in R.C.P. 13 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda being the tenants of a non-residential building are the petitioners in this Revision filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlords of the building, respondents herein filed the said application for eviction of the tenants under sub-s.2 and 4(iv) of S.11 of the Act. There were three schedules to the petition. A schedule had two shop rooms bearing Nos. 553/3 and 556/3, B Schedule had two rooms bearing No. 557/3 and C schedule had a room bearing No. 559/3. These three schedule rooms were in the possession of different tenants. Each of these schedules constituted a building as defined in the Act. But all these rooms were part of a larger structure or building. The landlord filed a common application for eviction of the tenants in respect of all the rooms on the plea that the entire building was in such a condition that it needed reconstruction and the landlord bonafide required to reconstruct the same and that he has the ability to rebuild the building. The case of the landlord was that the entire structure required reconstruction. We are not referring to the claim under S.11(2) of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent since that aspect was not projected before us at the hearing.

2. The tenants resisted the application for eviction on the ground of reconstruction. They pleaded that a single application for eviction of two sets of tenants from two sets of buildings as defined in the Act was not maintainable. They also resisted the claim for eviction on the ground of re-construction by submitting that the building was not in such a condition that it needed reconstruction. They pleaded that the claim was a pretext for eviction.

3. Before the Rent Control Court the question of misjoinder of causes of action or the non-maintainability of the application because it was a composite one relating to two tenancies was not agitated. The tenants made no attempt to get a point raised on that question or to seek an adjudication on that question from the Rent Control Court. On the other hand a plea of non joinder was raised which was rejected by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court on a consideration of the relevant materials came to the conclusion that the building was in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and the landlord bonafide required the building, the entire structure, for reconstruction. Thus the Rent Controller passed an order for eviction under S.11(4)(i v) of the Act with the corresponding right in the tenants to get back the building on tenancy on reconstruction. The tenants filed an appeal. Their contention that the building was not in such a condition that it required reconstruction within the meaning of S.11(4)(iv) of the Act was found to have no substance by the Appellate Authority. In other words the Appellate Authority agreed with the Rent Controller in holding that the building was in such a condition that it needed reconstruction and that the landlord bonafide needed the building for reconstruction. Before the Appellate Authority the contention that a single application for eviction of two sets of tenants from two sets of buildings as defined in the Act was not maintainable was urged. Two unreported decisions of this court one in C.R.P. 2714 of 1992 and the other in C.R.P. 2608 of 1998 were relied on in support. The Appellate Authority after referring to those decisions and after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.M.G. Chetty v. Ganeshan (AIR 1975 SC 1750) came to the conclusion that the objection to the maintainability of a single application was not sustainable. Thus the Appellate Authority rejected that contention and confirmed the order for eviction. This is what is challenged in this Revision by the tenants.

4. Though learned counsel for the tenants made an attempt to challenge the finding of the authorities below that the