Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The Iritti Co-operative Hospital Society Limited, a tenant who was suffered orders of eviction concurrently passed on the grounds under sub section (3) of Section 11, clause (ii) of sub section (4) of Section 11 and clause (iii) of sub section (4) of Section 11 at the hands of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, is in revision. The need projected by the respondents, who are husband and wife, in the context of the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that they require the petition schedule building, in which the revision petitioner is presently conducting hospital, for the purpose of starting a tourist home. The bona fides of the need was very stiffly disputed by the revision petitioner, who even claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The allegation of the landlords in the context of ground under section 11(4)(ii) was that the tenants have negligently and recklessly used the building as a result of which the value and utility of the building has been materially and permanently reduced. The defence of the tenant to the above ground was that the above allegations are incorrect and that all the defects if any in the building can be repaired. The landlords' allegation in the context of ground under section 11(4)(iii) was that the tenant is in possession of three other buildings not far away from the petition schedule building and that these buildings are more reasonably sufficient for accommodating the tenant's present hospital. The tenant in the statement of objections filed by them flatly disputed the above averment of the landlord and contended that they are not possessed of any other buildings. However, later they sought to amend the pleadings so as to contend that the buildings acquired by them subsequently were being used for accommodating the surgical wing of their hospital and that it was on account of insufficiency of the present premises that they acquired the new premises and that the new premises are not reasonably sufficient for accommodating the activities in the present premises. The Rent Control Court, however, did not allow the amendment of pleadings.

2. At trial by the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A15 and B1 to B15, Ext.C1 commission report, oral evidence of PW1, the first petitioner in the RCP and that of RW1, the Secretary of the revision petitioner society. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the bona fides of the need projected by the landlords was established by convincing oral evidence adduced by PW1. That Court would repell the tenant's claim for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 noticing that the tenant was not a natural person and was a society not entitled for the protection of the above proviso. Relying mostly on Ext.C1 commission report and the provision in the lease deed, under which it is the obligation of the tenant to carry out minor repairs of the building, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant is responsible for the present unsatisfactory condition of the building and would conclude that eviction ground under Section 11 (4)(ii) is made out.

3. The Rent Control Court relied mostly on Exts.B8 and B9 and concluded, on the basis of those documents, that the tenant had come into possession of as many as three buildings and a total extent of 25 cents of land being the site of those buildings. According to the Rent Control Court, the premises covered by Exts.B8 & B9 are reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements in the petition schedule premises. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on all the three grounds invoked by the landlords.

4. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner would produce Exts.B16, B17 and Ext.B18. Ext.B18 was an agreement of exchange under which the respondents/landlords had agreed to exchange the petition schedule premises to the other