1. Three landlords filed applications for evicting the petitioners, from the three rooms of the building in question belonging to them and taken on rent by the 1st petitioner, before the 6th respondent as B. R. C. Nos. 27, 28 and 32 of 1963. Certain common grounds were alleged by the landlords for directing the petitioners to put the landlords in possession, and therefore these applications were tried together with the consent of all the parties. The grounds in the applications for evicting the petitioners were:

(1) that the building needs reconstruction and the landlords bonafide require it for that purpose,

(2) that the tenants have materially and permanently destroyed the value and utility of the building, and

(3) that the 1st petitioner has transferred his right or sublet the rooms to the 2nd petitioner without the consent of the landlords.

2. The Rent Control Court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlords were entitled to recover possession of the building for the reason that the building needs reconstruction and that the petitioners committed acts of waste materially and permanently affecting the value of the building. The appellate