Thuiasidas, J.

Additional respondents 2 to 8 in R.C.A. No.59 of 1989 of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority, Koliam, are the petitioners in this revision. They are the legal representatives of one Pappu Raghavan, against whom the respondents herein filed R.C.P. No.18 of 1982 before the Rent Control Court, Koliam, for eviction under Ss.11(2),11(3) and 11(4) (ii) and (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2, It was alleged that the petition schedule premises with the machinery and accessories for a. saw mill were leased to Raghavan by one Narayanan, grandfather of the first respondent, on a monthly rent of Rs.525/- on 14-1--1.970 for a period of two years. On 1-5-1978, the rent was enhanced to Rs.675/-. Raghavan committed default in payment of rent from 1st of May, 1979 onwards. He was also alleged to have used the saw mill and accessories in an irresponsible and negligent manner that reduced their utility materially and permanently. He had his own building and land suitable to run a saw-mill. The lessor-Narayanan and the first respondent, to whom the petition-schedule property was allotted in partition, issued a notice to Raghavan on 14-7-1979 demanding surrender of the premises and payment of arrears of rent. It was stated that the premises were required by the first respondent to run a saw-mill. But Raghavan did not pay heed to the demands made in the notice. Narayanan died in 1981 and the application for eviction was filed on 19-3-1982, where it was alleged that the premises were required for the use of the son of the respondents, who is unemployed and dependent on them. Raghavan contested the petition. He denied that rent was kept in an ears and claimed that large amount was due to him from the landlord. The claims made under Ss.11(3) and 11(4) (ii) and (iii) were also disputed and he urged that the petition lacked bonafides.

3. By order dated 23-10-1986 the Rent Control Court allowed the petition only under S.11(2)(b) of the Act.

4. The petitioners before the Rent Control Court filed R.C.A. No.59ofl989 and the tenant filed R.C.A, No.60 of 1989 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. Pending appeal the tenant died and his legal representatives, the present petitioners, were impleaded on 12-2-1990 as per order on I. A.No. 981 of 1989. The two appeals were heard together and by a common judgment dated 30-6-1990 the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed R.C. A. No.60 of 1989 and allowed R.C. A. No.59 of 1989 in part. The findings under Ss.11(2)(b) and il(4)(ii) and (iii) of the Act were confirmed. But relief was granted under S.11(3) of the Act. The judgment of the court below granting eviction under S.11 (2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Act is under challenge in this revision.

5. Several grounds have been urged in the Memorandum of Revision. Exception has been taken to the finding under S.11(2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act. It was submitted that relevant materials had been misconstrued. A plea of non joinder of M/s. Ravi Industries and Saw Mills, which is stated to be the tenant of the premises, was also urged as a ground to contend that the petition is bad, and unsustainable.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

7. In our view, there is no merit in the contention that the rent control petition is bad for non joinder of M/s. Ravi Industries and Saw Mills. The petition schedule premises were entrusted to Raghavan by Narayanan, the grandfather of the first respondent. M/s. Ravi Industries and Saw mills is a firm of which Raghavan was the Managing Partner. There was no entrustment to the firm. It was under Ext.A2 that the premises were held. No doubt, rent had been enhanced from 1-5-1978 and the landlord also accepted rent from M/s. Ravi Industries and Saw Mills. That was not enough to indicate a fresh rental arrangement as alleged. We are unable to find any infirmity in the finding that the petition was not bad for non joinder o