Ramakrishnan, J.

Revision petitioners, the Palakkad District Co-operative Printing Press Limited (for short 'the Society') and its President, are challenging the concurrent orders of eviction of the building occupied by the Society as a tenant under the respondents on the ground of bona fide need.

2. Though in the Memorandum of Revision, the correctness of the finding regarding bona fide need was also challenged, at the time of arguments learned counsel for the revision petitioners Shri. V. Chitambaresh, according to us very fairly, has not pressed any such contentions and has raised only one point for our consideration. The learned counsel has thus canvassed the correctness of the view taken by the Rent Control Court and the learned District Judge that the tenant in this case being a Co-operative Society is disentitled to avail the protection granted under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to the tenants in general. It was forcefully submitted that so long as the Society is a tenant as defined in the Act and satisfies the two mandatory conditions stipulated in the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act, the Society can