K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

1. This is a tenant's revision against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad in RCA No. 8 of 2013 reversing in part, an order passed by the Rent Control Court, Palakkad in RCP No. 27 of 2011. The landlord had filed the Rent Control Petition on the grounds under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The landlady owns a building that is situate by the side of the College Road at Palakkad. The building consists of two shop rooms facing the road, with the landlady residing in the residential portion behind. According to the landlady, her son is employed in a software company in Hyderabad. He is suffering from a disease by name Cervical Dystonia which debilitates him from continuing his present employment. Therefore, he wants to return to his native place and to start a business in computer peripherals from the tenanted shop room. The first revision petitioner is the wife of the original tenant to whom the shop room was entrusted. He was conducting a tailoring shop from the premises. After his demise, the first revision petitioner has been conducting a stationery business. According to the landlady, the premises had been sublet to the original second respondent in the Rent Control Petition, who is no more. Therefore, the other revision petitioners have been impleaded as his legal representatives. The case of the landlady was that, she requires the tenanted shop room for the bona fide occupation of her son.

2. The tenants disputed the claim of the landlady. It was alleged that, the need that was put forward was neither genuine nor bonafide. The same was only a pretext for evicting the tenants. On the question of subletting, according to the first revision petitioner, her sister's son who was employed elsewhere was only helping her by opening the shop room in the morning and by closing the same at night since she was alone. The first revision petitioner, has no children. Though there were arrears of rent at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, the same was paid during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore, the said ground does not survive.

3. The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the above pleadings. Evidence on the side of the landlady consists of Exhibits A1 to A3 documents and her oral evidence as P.W. 1. On the side of the tenants, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibit B1 was marked. Exhibit C1 Commission Report was marked as Court Exhibit.

4. The Rent Control court considered the evidence on record and found that, the landlady was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. However, eviction was declined under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The aggrieved landlady carried the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad in RCA No. 8 of 2013. The Appellate Authority on a re-appreciation of the evidence, sustained the order of the Rent Control Court in finding that there was no subletting. However, the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3) has been set aside and an order of eviction has been granted. The aggrieved tenants are before us in revision.

5. According to Sri. T.K. Sandeep who appears for the revision petitioners, the landlady is in possession of another shop room which is located on the southern side of and forming part of the same building. The said room is larger and more spacious when compared to the tenanted shop room. The fact that the landlady was in possession of the said vacant room, has not been disclosed either in Exhibit A1, the initial notice that was issued or in her Rent Control Petition. The existence of the vacant room was pointed out in Exhibit A2 reply notice. Thereafter, when the Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises, on the basis of a work memo submitted by the tenant, the existence of the said room has been reported as per Exhibit C1. Acc