Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The landlords, petitioners before the Rent Control Court are the revision petitioners. The Rent Control Petitions were instituted by them invoking the grounds under Ss. 11(3) and 11(7) of the Act 2 of 1965. According to them, the first revision petitioner is a religious and charitable institution rendering considerable service to the public in the field of health and education and they bona fide require the buildings which are subject matter of the Rent Control Petitions as well as another independent building situated nearby for the purpose of starting a consultation clinic-cum-dispensary in Cherthala town. The proposal, as stated in the Rent Control Petitions, is to utilise the buildings, which are subject matter of the Rent Control Petition, for the purpose of consultation clinic-cum-dispensary and to utilise the nearby independent building as residential quarters for the duty doctors who will be attached to the clinic. It is urged in the Rent Control Petitions that the proposed consultation clinic-cum-dispensary is to be a memorial for late Rev. Fr.Joseph K.W. Thomas who was the founder of the green garden institutions conducted by the first petitioner and who incidentally was the Assistant Vicar of St. Marys Church, Muttom, which is situated very near to the petition schedule buildings. The Rent Control Petitions were resisted by the tenants raising various contentions. All the petitions were ordered to be tried jointly and were accordingly enquired into by the Rent Control Court. That Court on appreciating the evidence would accept the case of the landlords that they are institutions covered by Cl. 7 of S.11 and found that the requirement is bona fide. Some of the tenants claimed protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court found that those tenants had not succeeded in establishing that they satisfied both the ingredients of that proviso. Resultantly the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Ss.11(3) and 11(7) taking the view that the two sub-sections are not mutually exclusive. It will be noticed that the only witness, who was examined on the side of landlords before the Rent Control Court was PW 1- the manager who was collecting the rent from the tenants as authorised by the petitioners in the Rent Control Petitions. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the appeals preferred by the various tenants would hold that the bona fides of the claim was not established by the oral evidence adduced by the PW 1. That authority found that there is nothing on the record to hold that the first petitioner in the Rent Control Petition had anything to do with the buildings in question. That authority held that Ext.A1 bye laws pertaining to the first petitioner will not show that the second petitioner in the Rent Control Petitions was an institution attached to the first petitioner. That authority further noticed that being an institution, if as a matter of fact, a decision has been taken to start a consultation clinic-curn-dispensary as a memorial for late father Rev.Father Joseph K.W. Thomas, there will be some decision taken in that regard by the management of the first petitioner and that in the absence of any document produced in that regard by the first petitioner it was difficult to believe the version of the petitioners that they have bona fide need to establish a consultation clinic-cum-dispensary. The appellate authority also noticed that the case pursued in evidence was to demolish the existing buildings and to construct new buildings in its place and that such a case does not have proper foundation in the pleadings. In the above context it was further noticed that since the Kerala Building Rules are applicable to the Cherthala Municipal Town, in order to carry out demolition and reconstruction of any building, it is necessary that construction plan is got approved and a permit is issued by the local authority. Non produ