Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. The tenants, who faced orders of eviction in two separate proceedings instituted by the same landlord under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are before us in revision.

2. The rent control petitions were sought to be maintained on the basis of rental arrangements between the petitioners and the previous owner of the premises and subsequent atonement by the petitioners with the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlords') after purchase of the premises by the landlords on 28/1/1984.

3. The allegation of the landlords in the context of the ground of arrears of rent against the petitioner in R.C.R No.118/2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant No.1') who is running a bakery in the name and style 'Prabath Bakery' in the tenanted premises is that the current monthly rent payable by him is Rs.300/-and that he has paid rent at that rate for the period up to 31/12/2003 and thereafter, defaulted payment and despite a statutory notice he did not discharge the arrears. In the same context, the allegation against the petitioner in R.C.R.No.142/2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant No.2') who is running a stationary shop in the adjacent room is that the current monthly rent payable by him is Rs.500/-and that he has paid rent at that rate for the period up to 31/3/2004 and thereafter, defaulted payment and there was no discharge in spite of statutory notice.

4. In the context of ground of eviction under Section 11(3), landlords claimed that they, who are conducting a well established Hospital and Nursing Home at Perumbavoor, are experiencing shortage of space in the nursing school. Hence, they have decided to construct one more floor above the existing building of the nursing school and a decision to that effect was taken by the Administrative Committee of the hospital. Pursuant to that an application for permit was submitted before the local authority which was forwarded to the Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram, for approval. The Chief Town Planner issued the permit subject to the following rider:

"An access of minimum 7.00 metres shall be provided from Aluva-Munnar road to the proposed building by demolishing the shop situated by the side of the above said road conveniently."

The landlords allege that the access suggested as above would be accomplished only by utilising the situs of the premises occupied by the tenants and therefore, they are in bona fide need of the petition schedule rooms to carry out the construction in accordance with the plan after demolishing the same. Anticipating the contention by the tenants, it was further alleged that the tenants are not depending mainly on the income from the business carried out in the petition schedule premises and that several buildings are available in the locality for the tenants to shift their business, if it becomes necessary.

5. In the context of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii), it was alleged that tenant No.1 is running another bakery in the shop room No.XVII/1811 near the petition schedule room under the name and style 'Best Bakery' and tenant No.2 had purchased a land with building situated 100 metres away from the tenanted premises and a new shopping complex is being constructed there by him.

6. The tenants who resisted the petitions, stoutly denied the allegations in the petitions. They contested the eviction petitions on various grounds including denial of title, denial of landlord-tenant relationship and claiming other independent right, title and interest in the tenanted premises, non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of bona fides, lack of need for the alleged demolition of the building, concealment of the true facts etc.

7. The Rent Control Court after full-fledged separate trial in both the cases, ordered eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. However, eviction under Section 11(4)(i