Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. The one and perhaps the only important issue which arises for decision in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is, whether the single Rent Control Petition instituted by the respondents for evicting the revision petitioners two tenants occupying two rooms in a larger building, on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act, is maintainable? The revision petitioner in RCR.189/2008 at the earliest opportunity itself raised the contention that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable in law as the landlord has instituted a single Rent Control Petition for evicting himself and another tenant, who were governed by two different tenancies. The above contention did not find favour with either the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the need which was projected by the landlord in the context of the ground under sub-section 3 of Section 11 was a bonafide one and that both the tenants, who were arrayed as co-respondents in the RCP were unsuccessful in establishing that they were eligible for the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (3). Accordingly order of eviction was passed against both of them.

2. Sri.K.G.Gowri Shankar Rai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in RCR.No.189/08 would place strong reliance on the order of the Full Bench in Jamal Vs. Safia Beevi (2005 (2) KLT 359 (FB)) and submit that in view of the above decision of the Full Bench it has to be held that the Rent Control Petition is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties and hence not maintainable in law. Mr. Gowri Shankar Rai was supported in all his submissions by Sri. Jayesh Mohankumar, who appeared for revision petitioner

3. In fact the order of the Full Bench in Jamal Vs. Safia Beevi (cited supra) was cited before the Appellate Authority also. But the said authority, after discussing the Full Bench order, would take the view that the Full Bench decision did not apply to the facts which obtained in the case.

4. All the submissions of Mr.Gowri Shankar Rai and Mr. Jayesh Mohankumar were resisted by Mr.Paul Jacob, learned counsel for the 1st respondent landlord. According to us, in view of the concurrent nature of the factual findings entered by the statutory authorities regarding the merits of the eviction ground and the obvious situation that such findings are entered on appreciating legal evidence which is available on record, the only issue which arises for determination in this revision is, whether in the light of the order of the Full Bench in Jamal Vs. Safia Beevi it can be held that the single Rent Control Petition filed by the respondent against the revision petitioners was maintainable in law ?

5. The order of the Full Bench was delivered pursuant to a reference made by a Division Bench for a decision on the question as to whether a single Rent Control Petition can be maintained for evicting two tenants governed by two different tenancies on the same or several grounds of eviction. It is in paragraph 12 of the order that the learned Full Bench answers the reference and we quote the answers given by the Full Bench as follows:

"(i). Landlord can unite several causes of action against single tenant if he is occupying the same building in the event of which there will not be misjoinder of causes of actions and misjoinder of parties since tenant is single tenant occupying the same structure.

(ii). Landlord can prefer an application under S.11 (4)(iv) against various tenants who are occupying distinct portions of the same structure since the tenants are jointly interested in the causes of action and the defence available to all the tenants would be by and large common and hence there will not be any misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties.

(iii). Landlord cannot unite different causes of action in a single petitio