Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. Under challenge in these revisions filed by the landlords under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, for short) is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority refusing to order eviction against the respondents/tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act, confirming the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the rent control petitions. Though it was found by the learned Appellate Authority that the need alleged is bona fide, eviction was refused finding that the petitions are bound to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act.

2. The pleadings in the rent control petitions are identical, but there are variations regarding the terms of the lease deeds. As pleaded, the case of the landlords was that the rooms which are the subject matter of three rent control petitions viz., RCP Nos.4/2008, 5/2008 and 6/2008 together with the other portions of the building situated upon the land having a total extent of 4.5 cents in Perumbavoor Town, belong to them and they are under the possession of the respondents/tenants on the basis of separate rental arrangements entered into between them with the previous owners of the building.

3. In the room, which is the subject matter of R.C.P No.4/2008 (corresponding to RCA No.25/2009 and RCR No.391/2010), the office of the Perumbavoor Block Committee of the Indian National Congress Party is functioning.

4. In the room, which is the subject matter of R.C.P No.5/2008 (corresponding to RCA No.23/2009 and RCR No.434 of 2010) Wilson, the tenant therein is conducting a tailoring shop by name Good Will Dress Makers.

5. In the room, which is the subject matter of R.C.P No.6/2008 (corresponding to RCA No.24/2009 and RCR No.390 of 2010), Avira Pappu, the respondent therein is dealing with the hill produce items including spices. The common pleading in all these rent control petitions in the context of the ground under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) was that the first revision petitioner/landlord No.1 has an agency of Hindustan Lever Limited and is doing the whole sale distribution of their products in a place by name Aimury in Koovappady village and he has decided to shift his whole sale business from Aimury to Perumbavoor Town where the petition schedule rooms are situated. It is averred that for shifting/starting whole sale business, the landlords do not have any property other than the property extending to 4.500 cents where the building consisting of the rooms which are the subject matter of the rent control petitions are situated. It is further averred that the petitioners intend to demolish the building which presently stands on the property, to put up a modern building with facilities necessary for accommodating their whole sale business. It is also averred that the Perumbavoor Municipality has already been moved for approval of the reconstruction plan and the Municipality has issued building permit as B.A.No.95/2008- 2009 in respect of the proposed two storeyed building on 22.7.2008.

6. Paragraph (10) of the rent control petitions contain pleadings regarding the need of the landlords. Translation of paragraph (10) in R.C.P No.6/2008 which is similar to paragraph (10) in the other two RCP's is as follows:

" There is necessity to demolish the existing building and to put up a new building in order to enable the first petitioner (the first revision petitioner-landlord No.1) to commence his own whole sale shop. Therefore, the tenant was requested to put the landlord's possession of the room in their possession and the tenants have avoided surrender of the rooms raising one excuse or the other. "

7. Anticipating defence by the tenants based on the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act, it is averred in paragraph (11) of the rent control petitions that in the locality other buildings, including those belonging to the