K. Harilal, J.

The respondents/revision petitioners herein are tenants occupying different shop rooms owned by the petitioner/respondent herein. According to the petitioner/respondent herein, the petitioner/respondent herein is an educational institution namely Poonanchery Darunnajath Arabic College. The petitioner/respondent herein is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and the society is conducting educational institutions. The petitioner institution is in bona fide need of the entire building to start a teachers training institute. Therefore the petitioner/respondent herein has filed a petition seeking eviction under section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) against all the tenants, 28 in numbers.

2. The building consists of 22 shop rooms in the second floor. The Managing Committee of the Institution took a decision to file a petition seeking orders granting eviction of all the tenants and the same was approved by the general body held on 27.9.2013. The petitioner/respondent herein has no other suitable building in possession for starting the educational institution and the petition schedule building is the most suitable for the said purpose. Hence the petitioner/respondent herein made a demand to surrender the shop rooms for own occupation; but the respondents/revision petitioners herein rejected the said demand. In the above circumstances, the petitioner/respondent herein filed Rent Control Petitions seeking eviction.

3. The respondents/revision petitioners herein filed objection raising identical contentions, in so far as the pleadings, except the pleadings pertaining to the nature of occupation. The respondent in R.C.P. No.24 of 2014 is conducting a textile shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.25 of 2014 is conducting a textile shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.16 of 2014 is conducting a textile shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.19 of 2014 is conducting business in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.18 of 2014 is conducting a jewellery shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.27 of 2014 is conducting a photo studio in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.23 of 2014 is conducting a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.20 of 2014 is conducting a textile ready made shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.17 of 2014 is conducting a stationery shop in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.47 of 2014 is conducting a driving school in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.15 of 2014 is conducting a driving school in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.14 of 2014 is conducting a driving school in the petition schedule building, the respondent in R.C.P. No.26 of 2014 is conducting a foot ware shop and the respondent in R.C.P. No.36 of 2014 is conducting a tailoring shop respectively in the petition schedule building. According to them, the petitioner/respondent herein is not in bona fide need of the petition schedule building to start a teachers training institute as contended by them and the need put forward is only a ruse for eviction and to let out the room for higher rent to others. It is also contended that the building is not suitable for the proposed need. The respondents/revision petitioners herein are depending upon the business in the petition schedule building and that there are no other suitable rooms available in the locality for shifting their business.

4. On the aforesaid rival contentions, both parties adduced evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, RW1 to RW14 and Exts.A1 to A21 and Exts.C1 to C2(a). After evaluating the aforesaid evidence on record, the Rent Control Co