A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

1. Revision Petitioners are the tenants. The first respondent is the landlord and the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. The above revision has been filed against the judgment in R.C.A. 31 of 1991 on the file of the Second Addl. District Judge and Rent Control Appellate Authority arising from the order in R.C.P. 124 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff and Rent Controller, Ernakulam First respondent filed the R.C.P. against the revision petitioners and respondents 2 to 9. Eviction was sought on the grounds of;

(1) need for own occupation;

(2) sublease or transfer; and

(3) re-construction.

The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for eviction rejecting the claim of the landlord. The landlord filed RCA. 31 of 1991 against the said order. The Appellate Authority ordered eviction on the ground that the original tenant transferred its right under the lease to a stranger without the consent and knowledge and also on the ground that the landlord bona fide needs the building for his own occupation. However, the Appellate Authority disallowed eviction on the ground of reconstruction confirming the findings of the Rent Controller. Being aggrieved b