The court emphasized the need for tenants to produce evidence to support claims of hardship under the second proviso to the eviction statute.

O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioners who are the respondents-tenants in the respective rent control petitions have filed these revision petitions under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The respondent-Sabha in the revision petitions is the landlord. The Sabha, through its Managers, filed R.C.P.Nos.33, 34, 36 and 37 of 2013 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North Paravur, seeking eviction of the respective tenants under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . The Rent Control Court vide separate orders allowed the rent control petitions. The respective tenants filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), North Paravur under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals as per separate judgments.

3. The Rent Control Court, as well as the Appellate Authority, disposed the respective proceedings as per separate orders/judgments. The Rent Control Court held independent trial on all the rent control petitions. The respondents claimed eviction of all the four rooms for a common purpose. The need urged is that after demolishing the whole building an old-age home is to be constructed. The whole land, including the area occupied by the building in question, is proposed to be used for the purpose. Objections raised by the petitioners-tenants are similar. It is contended that the respondents did not have a genuine desire to construct an old-age home, the landlord Sabha has two other vacant plots, where an old-age home can more conveniently be constructed and the present attempt to evict the petitioners is stemmed out from their failure in the earlier attempts to evict the petitioners. All the petitioners claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. The petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.151 and 152 of 2019 further contended that the respondents initiated proceedings for fixation of fair rent, and therefore, the proceedings for eviction is not maintainable. Considering the said nature of the contentions, it is convenient to consider all these revision petitions together.

4. During the trial, one of the Managers of the landlord-Sabha, Sri.Shaji, was examined in all the cases. The building designer, who prepared the plan for the proposed old- age home, Sri.Rajesh P.P., was also examined in all the cases. On the side of the landlord, two commissioners were examined, with a view to prove the reports they have submitted in some other cases. Each of the tenants was also examined. They gave evidence essentially with respect to the requirements of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. After considering the said evidence in detail, the Rent Control Court found that the respondent-Sabha genuinely intends to construct an old-age home and the other two vacant lands available with the Sabha do not dis-entitle it from claiming eviction. As regards the second proviso to (3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court held that none of the tenants succeeded in proving both its limbs.

5. The orders of eviction of the Rent Control Court were challenged before the Appellate Authority raising similar contentions. The Appellate Authority did not accept the contentions of the petitioners. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Such concurrent findings are now challenged in these revision petitions.

6. These revision petitions were admitted to file and the execution of the orders of eviction was stayed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. The petitioners raised a few legal contentions regarding maintainability of the petitions. It was contended that the respondent-Sabha has not been represented by duly authorised persons in the rent control petitions. Bye-law of the Sabha was produced and clause 36 in the Bye-law authorises the Managers of the Sabha to r