Sankaran, J.

The petitioners in these revisions are tenants. They challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in all the cases and under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act in one case, namely, R.C.R.No.328/2014.

2. Seven Rent Control Petitions were filed jointly by eight persons claiming co-ownership rights over the petition schedule buildings situated in an extent of 13.5 cents of land in Perumbavoor town. The tenants occupied rooms in a line building situated in that property. The tenants are doing various businesses. The petitioners in the Rent Control Petitions formed a partnership. They contended that the rooms in the occupation of the tenants are bona fide required for the purpose of the partnership to demolish the building, to construct a building of about 8690 sq.ft. and to conduct large scale textile business. Though various grounds were raised in the different Rent Control Petitions, what is relevant for the time being is the common ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. In R.C.P.No.6/2010 from which R.C.R.No.328/2014 arises, the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is also relevant.

3. Before the Rent Control Court, four witnesses were examined on the side of the landlords and eight witnesses were examined on the side of the tenants. 151 documents were marked on the side of the landlords and 65 documents were marked on the side of the tenants. The Commissioner's report was also marked.

4. On a consideration of the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need put forward by the landlords is genuine. The contention put forward by the tenants that they are entitled to the benefit of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was negatived, though in two Rent Control Petitions (R.C.P.No.11/2010 and R.C.P.No.12/2010), the Rent Control Court found that the tenants would be entitled to the benefit of the first limb of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenants filed appeals against the order of eviction and the landlords filed cross objections in respect of the grounds which were disallowed by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeals and cross objections.

5. The case put forward by the landlords that they formed a partnership and the partners bona fide require to demolish the building and in that place to construct a multi storied building to conduct a large scale textile business was found acceptable on evidence by both the authorities. That is a finding of fact. We do not find any ground to interfere with that finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below.

6. The tenants contended that they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and that there are no other buildings available in the locality to accommodate their business. The courts below found on evidence that except the tenants in R.C.P.No.11/2010 and 12/2010, the other tenants failed to establish the first limb of the 2nd proviso that they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. In R.C.P.No.6/2010, the tenant was not examined. In R.C.P.No.7/2010, RW4 was examined. The Rent Control Court found, after analysing her evidence, that she failed to prove the first limb of the 2nd proviso. In R.C.P.No.9/2010, the tenant was examined as RW3. It has come out in evidence that he is a very rich man and his monthly sales would come to more than Rs.20 lakhs. His children are admittedly running several business concerns, though according to the landlords, the tenant himself is doing those businesses. In R.C.P.No.11/2010, the tenant was examined as RW6 and his son was examined as RW7. The tenant is running a barbe