Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

RCR. No. 204 of 2007 is instituted by the tenants and RCR. Nos. 35 of 2008 is instituted by the landlords. Both these revision petitions are directed against the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals filed by the tenants and the landlords. The landlords filed the rent control petition invoking the grounds of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) (arrears of rent), 11(3) (bona fide need for own occupation) and 11(8) (requirement for additional accommodation for personal use).

2. The landlords case in the context of the ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was that the contract rent was Rs.4840/- per mensem and that the same is in arrears since January 2002 and that despite the statutory demand notice issued under Section 11(2)(b) the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent within the period of 15 days of receipt of the notice or even thereafter. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties became inclined to accept the landlords case that the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent payable since January, 2002. However, that court found hat there was no evidence to hold that the contract amount of Rs.4400/- payable as per Ext.A5 lease agreement was increased to Rs.4840/-and accordingly concluded that rent is in arrears only at the rate of Rs.4400/-per mensem. Considering the grounds for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) the Rent Control Court noticed that the evidence given by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner who was examined as PW1 was only hearsay evidence regarding the requirement of the petitioners to expand their jewellery business which was being conducted by them in the adjacent northern rooms of the petition schedule building. That court also found that no acceptable evidence was let in for proving that the rooms available in the upstair portion already in the possession of the landlords was not sufficient for meeting the projected need of expansion of the landlords business. That court relied on the evidence of CPW-2, a retired Chief Engineer of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to find that the area of the upstair portion possessed by the landlords was equal to the corresponding area in the first floor. More importantly that court noticed that none of the landlords who are three in number have chosen to enter the witness box to testify regarding the bona fides of their need for additional accommodation. Rent Control Court relied on the judgment WP(C)N0. of this Court in 2005(2) KLJ 46, the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2005 (2) SCC 217 and also the judgment of this Court in 1994(2) KLT 571 and held that the failure on the part of anyone of the petitioners to speak about their own bona fides was fatal and accordingly declined order of eviction sought for under Sections 11(3) and 11(8). The Rent Control Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeals preferred by the landlords and the tenants. In the context of a contention seriously raised by the tenants that the previous owners of the building had agreed to sell the building to them and that they are possessing the building on the strength of that agreement for sale and that there is no landlord tenant relationship between them and the petitioners in the RCP, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently held against the tenants that the jural status of the respondents in RCP who were admittedly tenants under the predecessors in interest of the present landlords was that of tenants in view of the conceded position that the ownership had not been conveyed to them and that the suit filed by them for specific performance was only pending.

3. As already indicated RCR No. 204 of 2007 has been filed by the tenants impugning the order of eviction passed against them under Section 11(2)(b) and in RCR No. 35 of 2008 the landlords challenge the find