P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P. No. 106 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara. The respondents/landlords instituted R.C.P. No. 106 of 2011 praying for an order of eviction under sections 11(2)(b) , 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. The case set out in the rent control petition was that the rent is in arrears from 15.6.2011, that the tenants have not paid the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara in R.C.A. No. 58 of 2010 with effect from 15.7.2002, that the fourth petitioner in the rent control petition who has lost his employment, bona fide needs the petition schedule building to start a business in furniture, that the tenants have sublet the building and that they have come by possession of another building in the same locality. The tenants opposed the petition for eviction by filing a counter statement wherein they denied and disputed the case set out by the landlords that they bona fide need the building so as to enable the fourth petitioner in the rent control petition to start a business in furniture. They also contended that they are entitled to the protection of the first and second provisos to section 11(3) of the Act. The tenants contended that the landlords have, before the rent control petition was filed, sold a building in their possession.

2. The fourth petitioner before the rent control court was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were produced and marked on the side of the landlords. The second respondent before the rent control court (the second petitioner herein) was examined as RW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were produced and marked on the side of the tenants. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and held that the need put forward is bonafide. The rent control court repelled the contention of the tenants that the landlords have sold a building before the institution of the rent control petition and therefore, they are not entitled to an order of eviction. Though the rent control court held that the tenants have proved the ingredients of the first limb of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act, it held that the tenants have not discharged their burden to prove the ingredients of the second limb of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. Though such a contention had not been raised in the counter statement filed by the tenants, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad and Another Vs. Atma Ram Chauhan and Others, that once the fair rent is assessed and fixed, the tenant cannot be evicted for a period of five years from the date of the order fixing the fair rent. Referring to Ext. A1 judgment delivered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara on 27.7.2011 in R.C.A. No. 58 of 2010 whereby the fair rent of the petition schedule building was fixed, it was contended that the period of five years stipulated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has not expired and therefore, the instant rent control petition which was filed on 15.10.2011 is liable to be dismissed as premature. The rent control Court accepted the said contention and dismissed the rent control petition by order passed on 22.8.2012. The landlords carried the matter in appeal by filing R.C.A. No. 173 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. The rent control appellate authority considered the rival, contentions and allowed the appeal by judgment delivered on 22.7.2015 and ordered eviction under section 11(3) of the Act. The rent control appellate authority held that the tenants have not discharged their burden to prove the ingredients of the first limb of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act and as the tenants have to prove the ingredients of both the limbs of the second proviso and have faile