K.T. SANKARAN, J.

1. The respondents filed R.C.P. No.7 of 2005, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Adoor, against the petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the R.C.P. under Section 11(3) and dismissed it under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act, the petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A. No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge -I), Pathanamthitta. The respondents/landlords filed a memorandum of Cross Objection, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority also allowed the Cross Objection in part and granted an order under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The order of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii) was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and to that extent, the Cross Objection was disallowed. Thus the landlords obtained an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, which is under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant.

2. Originally, in the schedule to the Rent Control Petition, 2 items of properties are shown. Item No.1 is an extent of 21 cents of land with the structures therein. Item No.2 is part of item No.1 in which the building is situated. According to the landlords, as per Exhibit B4 agreement dated 30.1.1965, the owner of the property, namely, Sosamma George, entered into a lease arrangement with Esso Standard Eastern Inc. for the purpose of running a Petrol and Lubrication Service Station for a period of 20 years with effect from 1.10.1964 on a monthly rent of 250/-. Esso Standard Eastern Inc. was taken over by the Government of India as per the Esso (Acquisition of undertakings in India) Act 1974 (Act 4 of 1974) and it was amalgamated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition). There is a renewal clause in Exhibit B4 agreement. The landlords contended that the tenant shall be deemed to have exercised the option for renewal and the period of renewed lease expired on 30.9.2004. After the death of Sosamma George, the property in question was divided among her legal heirs and item No.2 in the petition schedule was allotted to the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition and the balance extent was allotted to their brother George Varghese. It was alleged that subsequent to the partition, George Varghese dispossessed the tenant with respect to the property allotted to him. According to the landlords, the building is required for their bonafide occupation for conducting an automobile workshop. The landlords also contended that the rent was in arrears and that the tenant has acquired possession of other buildings.

3. The tenant disputed the bonafide need. It was contended by the tenant that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable since Exhibit B4 demise was not in respect of the building and appurtenant land, but it was in respect of the land. The tenant contended that the land was taken on lease by the predecessor-in-interest of the tenant for running a retail outlet in petroleum products and in pursuance of the said lease, they had put up permanent structures and buildings like pumps, tanks, sales room etc. The respondents in the Rent Control Petition contended that they are entitled to the protection under Section 106 of Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was also contended that the petition schedule property is not a building as defined under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Both the authorities below held that the lease to the predecessor-in-interest of the present tenant was in respect of the building and not the land and therefore, the t