C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The concurrent finding in a petition filed under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act') is under challenge in this revision petition. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the respondent/tenant in R.C.P.No.56 of 2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners therein and the third respondent herein is also one of the legal heirs of the respondent tenant. In the rent control petition, it is stated that the first petitioner therein/respondent No.1 herein, has been conducting hotel business in the tenanted premises. It is for the purpose of starting business of fancy-cum-ladies materials for the second petitioner/second respondent herein that they sought eviction of the original tenant from the tenanted premises.

2. Before the Rent Control Court, the second petitioner/second respondent herein was examined as PW1 besides getting marked Exts.A1 to A3, on the side of the petitioner. The original tenant was examined as RW1 and on his side, Exts.B1 to B4 were got marked. Evaluation of the evidence on record and the rival contentions culminated in an order in favour of the petitioners under section 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the original tenant preferred R.C.A.No.58/2015 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the original tenant died and consequently, his legal heirs were got impleaded as supplemental appellants. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. It is in such circumstances that the captioned revision petition has been filed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. In fact, notice on admission by speed post was issued to the respondents and it is in pursuance thereof that respondents 1 and 2 had entered appearance.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereafter in this order, in accordance with their rank and status in the revision petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

4. The core contention of the revision petitioners is that the authorities below ought to have found the rent control petition filed under section 11(3) of the Act as not maintainable for the reason that going by the averments in the rent control petition, a petition under section 11(8) of the Act alone would lie. It is submitted, relying on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kunhammi v. Abdullakutty [2015 (1) KLT 795 (FB)] that sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act are mutually exclusive and independent. The foundation for such a contention is that going by the averments in the claim petition, the first respondent herein who is none other than the husband of the second respondent, has been conducting a hotel business in the tenanted building. Admittedly, it is in the very same building that the second respondent viz., the wife of the first respondent intends to start the aforesaid business. According to the revision petitioners, it is nothing but an expansion of the business by the landlord being conducted in another room of the building where the tenanted shop room is a portion. The learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 14 of the decision in Kunhammi's case to fortify his contention that in the circumstances obtained in the case, rent control petition under section 11(3) of the Act ought to have held as not maintainable. In other words, according to the petitioner, the authorities below ought to have upheld his contention that only a petition under section 11(8) would have been the remedy available to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. In the contextual situation, it is only relevant to refer to the relevant recital from paragraph 14 of the said decision which was heavily relied on by the revision petitioner. Evidently, in Kunhammi's cas