K. Surendra Mohan, J.

This is a tenants’ revision against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Neyyantinkara, in R.C.P. No.15/2000 and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, R.C.A. No.31/2006.

2. The Rent Control Petition was filed in respect of two shop rooms occupied by the revision petitioners/tenants. One tenant is conducting a medical store while the other is conducting a bakery. The landlady claimed eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent (S.11(2)(b)) and bona fide own occupation (S.11(3)) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short. The Rent Control Court found that the ground under S.11(2)(b) was not available to the landlady for the reason that a notice of demand, as contemplated by the Section, had not been served on the tenants. The said finding has become final. Therefore, the only ground that survives is the ground under S.11(3).

3. According to the landlady, her husband is an air conditioner mechanic working in the Gulf. He has returned to his native place and he is unemployed now. The rooms, according to the landlady, were needed for starting a workshop for conducting the repairs and maintenance of refrigerators, air conditioners and other similar equipments.

4. The need was resisted by the revision petitioners disputing the bona fides of the landlady and contending that there were no other suitable buildings available in the locality for shifting the business. According to them, there was no privity of contract between them and the respondent. The original landlord was Sri. Sreedharan, who was no more and on his death, the property had devolved on all his legal heirs. Thereafter by partition, the landlady had acquired title to the two shop rooms. The Rent Control Petition was tried by the Rent Control Court on the above pleadings.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of Pws 1 to 4 and Dws 1 to 3, and Exts.A 1 to A10, Ext.B1, Ext.X1, Exts.C1 and C2 documents.

6. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the landlady had successfully established the need under S.11(3), and therefore, was entitled to an order of eviction. It has also been found that the tenants were not entitled to the benefits of the proviso to S.11 (3) of the Act. Though the findings of the Rent Control Court were challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.31/2006, the Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. This Revision Petition is filed against the said concurrent findings of the authorities below.

7. Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty, who appears for the revision petitioners/tenants, has submitted that there was misjoinder of causes of action in the above case and that the Rent Control Petition was not maintainable in respect of the petition schedule shop rooms. He also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Jamal v. Safia Beevi (2005 (2) KLT 359 (F.B)) and also the decision in Annie George v. Jamal (2003 (2) KLT 530). The counsel has further contended that the R.C.P. was not maintainable for the additional reason that the same was filed before the expiry of the one year period stipulated by the 3rd proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the landlady became the absolute owner of the petition schedule shop rooms only under the partition deed and since the Rent Control Petition was filed before the expiry of the statutory period stipulated by the third proviso to S.11(3), the Rent Control Petition itself was not maintainable.

8. We have heard the learned counsel in detail and have perused the documents as well as the decisions relied on by the learned counsel. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide is liable to be interfered w