Devan Ramachandran, J.

The tenants, who have suffered the discomfiture of two orders against them from the courts below, ordering their eviction from the petition schedule properties, have come up before us in this revision.

2. The contentions of the tenants/petitioners herein are foundationalised on certain very specific legal issues impelled along with the rather routine defences against claims of landlords for eviction on grounds of bonafide need.

3. We will deal with the contentions presently, after we place on record certain essential facts.

4. R.C.P.No.6 of 2014 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, from which this revision arises, was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, who concededly are the owners of the petition schedule shoprooms. The said schedule consists of three items: the first consisting of eight rooms, the second consisting of four rooms and the third consisting of one room of the same building. The third respondent is the father of the second respondent and the husband of the first respondent. In other words, respondents 1 and 2 are mother and daughter, who are the owners of the petition schedule properties and the third respondent, being their husband and father respectively, is said to be in possession and control of the petition schedule properties.

5. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondents herein projecting the case of bonafide need for the third respondent on the ground that he intends to start a business of his own. The third respondent, who got himself examined as PW1, stated unequivocally that he has no other business of his own and that he has been working pro bono as the Secretary of a charitable society. He expressed his desire to obtain the petition schedule rooms for starting an educational institution and for such purpose he contended that the said rooms are the most suitable and appropriate.

6. We notice that the Rent Control Court allowed the petition finding in favour of the respondents, which was challenged by the appellants by filing an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara, numbered as R.C.A.No.134 of 2014, which also has concluded against them, confirming the views and findings of the Rent Control Court. The appellants have filed this revision petition impugning the concurrent findings of the courts below, which have found against them and are consequently assailing the orders of eviction on various grounds.

7. We have heard Sri. P.B. Krishnan and Sri. Zubair Pulikkool, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners and Sri. B. Krishnan, learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.

8. Before we consider the merits of the legal contentions of the petitioners, we must also see certain specific assertions made by them on facts.

9. The first petitioner is stated to be a co-operative society, registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the second petitioner is an individual who claims to have been the erstwhile Secretary of the first petitioner. According to their pleadings, the first and second items of the petition schedule, totally comprising of 11 shop rooms, were let out by the landlords to the first petitioner by two agreements, dated 7.10.2004 and 16.4.2011; whereas the third item of the petition schedule which consists of one other shop room in the same building, was let out to the second petitioner in his individual name under another lease agreement dated 16.4.2011.

10. The first petitioner says that they are running an ayurvedic hospital in the petition schedule items 1 and 2 shoprooms while the second petitioner maintains that the room in his possession is being used for his own purposes. According to them, the plea of need of the third respondent now made by the respondents is not bonafide and they allege that this is only a ruse to obtain eviction of the shop rooms. In addition to this, they contend that the Rent Control Petition against the first petiti