A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. The tenants are before us in revision. The respondent/landlord approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the revision petitioners from the tenanted premises under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') for the alleged need of starting a tourist resort and also under S. 11(4)(ii) alleging that the revision petitioners have caused permanent and material damage to the buildings.

2. The revision petitioners resisted the claim contending that they have been put in possession of the premises in the year 2005 on the agreement that the lease would be for a period of 15 years and hence, the petition for eviction is premature and not legally sustainable. They further contended that the alleged need is only a ruse for eviction and the allegation regarding destruction is false. Also, it was contended that the main source of their livelihood is the industrial unit set up in the tenanted premises and no suitable buildings are available in the locality for shifting their business.

3. The Rent Control Court found that the claim for eviction is unsustainable in the light of Ext. B2 agr