Harilal, J.

Since these revisions are filed challenging a common judgment passed by the Appellate Authority in RCANos.27/2014 and 34/2014 and the parties are common, the Rent Control Revisions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

2. The revision petitioners are the tenants against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”). According to the landlord, the petition schedule shop rooms belonged to his parents Shakkeela Majeed and Abdul Majeed and the respondents in the Rent Control Petitions were tenants under them. After the death of his father, his mother and children entered into Ext.A1 partition deed and as perExt.A1 partition deed the petition schedule shop rooms and remaining two other rooms situated in the ground floor were allotted to the petitioner and thereafter the tenants were attorned to him and they are paying rent to him. He bona fide needs the petition schedule building for starting a shop of hard wares and paints. He has no other building of his own to start the said business; but the tenants have in their possession other suitable buildings and other vacant buildings are available in the locality also. It is further averred that he was working abroad, for a short period, on temporary basis, and thereafter he was employed at IBM, Bangalore and then resigned the job and at present he has no avocation for his livelihood.

3. Both the tenants resisted the said contention contending that they are not aware of Ext.A1 partition deed executed by the mother of the landlord and they are still tenants under Shakeela Majeed, the mother of the petitioner. Further, they resisted the bona fides of the need and, according to them, it is a pretext for eviction only and they are entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. After considering the rival pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the denial of title of the landlord is so vague and sans bona fides. As regards the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected was a bona fide one and the tenants are not entitled to get protection under the provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act. In appeals, the appellate court also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeals.

4. Though, these revisions have been filed on various grounds, the tenants mainly challenged the concurrent finding of the courts below that the denial of title is bereft of bona fides. According to them, as per the covenant in Ext.A1 partition deed, the landlord is not the landlord as contemplated under Section 2(3) of the Act. In other words, the mother of the present landlord alone is entitled to receive rent and they have been paying rent in the account of the mother. Therefore, she alone can file an application seeking eviction of the tenants, under the bona-fide need. In order to substantiate the said argument, the learned counsel for the tenants drew our attention to the definition of “landlord” under Section 2(3) of the Act and the decision cited in Mariamma v. Chinnamma John [2015 (2) KLT 521].

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord advanced arguments to justify the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby the denial of title stands rejected on a finding that it lacks bona fides. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, the covenant incorporated in Ext.A1 is an internal arrangement between the mother and the son and the same is of no consequence at all for determining the right to file an application seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, particularly, when the covenant was neither enforced nor acted upon by the mother. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the landlord cited Narayanan K.N. v. Khadeeja and Another [2017 (3)KHC 798 (DB)] and argued that in view of the aforesaid d