A.M. Babu, J.

1. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action. This is one of the matters involved in this revision.

2. Two landlords sought the eviction of their common tenant. Only one petition was filed. It was filed under Section 11(3), 4(iii) and (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). The ground under Section 11(8) was withdrawn by the landlords. The ground under Section 11(4)(iii) was rejected by the Rent Control Court. The ground under Section 11(3) was decided in favour of the landlords. The tenant was directed to vacate. The tenant appealed. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The tenant is in revision.

3. Parties are referred to in this order either as landlords and tenant or as they are shown in the rent control petition.

4. The case of the landlords on their need for own occupation is stated below: The rooms shown in the 'A' and 'B' schedules to the petition are two adjacent rooms. The 1st petitioner owns the 'A' schedule room. The 'B' schedule room is the second petitioner's. Both the rooms are in the occupation of a common tenant. The landlords need vacant possession of both the rooms. They propose to do the business of manufacture and sale of furniture in the said two rooms and also in a vacant space of 825 square feet. They do not have any other building to do the proposed business. Their need is bona fide.

5. The tenant, a company, contends as under : The two rooms are held by the company under two separate and distinct leases. Therefore a single petition for eviction is not maintainable. The alleged need is not bona fide. The 'A' and 'B' schedule rooms are not suitable for the landlords to do business. They have other rooms in their possession. The tenant is entitled to be protected under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

7. There are a few admitted facts. The petitioners are brothers. They, their sister and father own different portions of a shopping complex. It is a three storied building. A portion of the ground floor is owned by the first petitioner. The second petitioner owns the remaining portion of the ground floor. The other two floors are owned by the sister and the father of the petitioners. The 'A' schedule room belongs to the first petitioner. The second petitioner owns the 'B' schedule room. The 'A' and 'B' schedule rooms are adjacent rooms. The respondent company is the tenant of both the rooms. The company holds the rooms under separate leases. A space measuring 825 square feet on the ground floor is owned and possessed by the first petitioner. The above are admitted facts.

8. The tenant challenges the maintainability of the petition. There are two rooms, two landlords and two distinct leases. Therefore, according to the tenant, the landlords should file separate petitions. The tenant contends that a single petition by two landlords to evict one tenant holding under two separate leases is not maintainable. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action is the precise objection.

9. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action is not a grey area in the rent control law. In an unreported decision (C.R.P.No.714/1992) a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that the rent control legislation does not contemplate a single application against separate tenants holding separate lease arrangements. Another Division Bench in Sulthan v. Mohanan (2000 (3) KLT 338) has held that there cannot be any objection to a single petition being maintained for eviction if the claim is for re-construction of the entire structure. Yet another Division Bench noticed the aforesaid conflicting views. That led to the pronouncement of the Full Bench in Jamal v. Safia Beevi (2005 (2) KLT 359). Answers (ii) and (iii) given by the Full Bench to the reference read thus :

(ii) Landlord can prefer an application under Section 11(4)(iv) against various tenants who are occupying distinct portions of the same structure since the ten