Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. This revision at the instance of a tenant involves a quotidian and ubiquitous claim of the landlord seeking eviction of his building on the ground of bona fide need. When hearing of this case proceeded, certain corollary issues relating to the validity of joint claims by more than one petitioners, operational impact and ambit of remand orders and the issue regarding dependency for the purpose of invoking the provisions relating to bona fide need under the Rent Control Act were impelled for consideration. These issues, though not the primary, became the focal point of the submissions of the learned counsel during the course of hearing of this revision and we have considered such submissions with great care and diligence.

2. The petitioner in this rent control revision petition is the tenant of the petition schedule building owned by the first respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in R.C.P.No.12 of 2009 on the files of the Rent Controller/Munsiff Perambra. The rent control petition was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 seeking eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that the second respondent requires the petition schedule building to commence a business to eke out a livelihood for himself.

3. The foundations of the claim of the respondents herein for eviction was that the second respondent does not have a building of his own and that he is dependent upon the first respondent, his brother, for accommodation and that the eviction of the appellant was necessitated on account of the fact that there was no other accommodation available.

4. The petitioner on the other hand contested the claim of the respondents and maintain that the need put forward by respondents 1 and 2 is not bona fide and also that their father Sri. Kunhammed was in ownership and possession of several other shop rooms, which could have been used by the second respondent herein for the purposes that was stated by him in the petition.

5. Initially, the court below allowed the rent control petition ordering eviction of the petitioner which was appealed against by him which led to a judgment by the First Appellate Court ordering a remand on the limited question as to whether the father of the respondents Sri. Kunhammed had other shop rooms and as to whether any of those shop rooms would be found available for the use of the second respondent herein. This was warranted because the petition averments indicated that the second respondent was actually living with his father and that he was, in fact, employed by his father in a medical shop owned and run by him. According to the petitioner, this singular fact proves his contentions that the second respondent is not dependent on the first respondent - his brother for accommodation because he is, admittedly, dependent on his father for all purposes, including for his livelihood and that the need shown by him to start a new business is only a ruse to obtain his eviction.

6. After the order of remand, an application was made by the respondents herein as I.A.No.33 of 2014 seeking amendment of the Rent Control Petition to state that even though the second respondent is employed in the medical shop run by his father, he bona fide intends to start a business of his own and that for such purpose he needs the petition schedule shop to commence his proposed business. It was also admitted therein that there are other shop rooms in the ownership of their father but that all of them have been rented out even prior to the filing of the present rent control petition. The respondents also asserted that the shop rooms in the ownership and possession of their father were not suitable for the storage of allopathic medicine, the business that the second respondent intends to start.

7. The court below on an assessment of all the pleadings and evidence available, allowed the rent control petition directing the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule sho