Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The landlords are the revision petitioners. They sought for eviction of the respondent-tenant who is conducting business in time keepers of various types by name TimenTune in the schedule building which is situated at a spot which can easily be described as the heart area of Cochin City from the point of our view, the junction where the Mahatma Gandhi Road meets the Rajaji Road. The ground for eviction invoked were Section 11(2) (b) arrears of rent and Section 11(3) bona fide need for own occupation. The R.C.P. was instituted by the revision petitioners relying on the lease deed executed by the respondent in favour of one Narayanan, the brother of the first revision petitioner on 28.7.1989. It was averred that consequent on partition of the common properties amongst the above brother Narayanan, the first petitioner and others, the ownership of the schedule building became allotted towards the share of the first revision petitioner and that the respondent-tenant attorned to the revision petitioners and was paying the rent directly to the revision petitioners.

2. The respondent filed detailed statements of objections. He contended through the written statement of objection that at the time of construction of the building, he paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. He also contended that a further amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid to Shri Narayanan, brother of the first revision petitioner who agreed to adjust the amount towards the rent payable. He further contended that for making substantial alterations in the building for the purpose of business, such as changing of the red oxide flooring to marble and granite flooring, he expended a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with the consent of Shri Narayanan. According to him, all these payments and investments were made by him in view of an agreement by Narayanan that he will either be allowed to purchase the building, in which case the amounts invested by him will be adjusted towards the purchase price and if the purchase is not materialized, he will be allowed to hold the building as a permanent tenant on condition that every three years, the original contract rent of Rs.900/-will stand increased by 5%. Significantly, the lease deed of 28.7.1989 specifically relied on in the Rent Control Petition was not disputed by the respondent. On the contrary, while conceding the existence of that lease deed and conceding that at least as regards the rent liability, that lease deed was being acted upon. It was contended that the above lease deed was got executed only for the purpose of income-tax. After filing objections, I.A.No.1644/02 was filed by the respondent, seeking an order that the claim or permanent tenancy raised by him to the RCP be considered as a preliminary issue. To that I.A., the revisions petitioners filed objections denying the claim of the respondent and contending that the case does not involve any claim for permanent tenancy. The Rent Control Court enquired into the I.A. and evidence at the inquiry consisted of Exhibits A1 to A1(d) receipts and PW1, the testimony of the tenant/ petitioner. On the side of the respondents/landlords, the same consisted of documents Exhibits B1 to B3 and counter evidence of the first revision petitioner as RW1, apart from Exhibit C1 commission report. That court evaluated the evidence and would come to the conclusion that the claim of permanent tenancy has been raised without any bona fide and with the objective of protracting the proceedings for eviction.

1. 3. The respondent preferred appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court as R.C.A.No.191/2002 and the Appellate Authority would in reversal of the finding of the Rent Control Court found that the respondents claim of permanent tenancy is a bona fide one. It is impugning the above order of the Appellate Authority that the present petition has been filed by the landlords invoking jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) (Act 2 of 1965). We have he