Ajithkumar, J.

R.C.P.No.119 of 2012 was filed by the 1st respondent-landlord before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff-I), Kozhikode, seeking eviction of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, who are the tenants in the petition schedule shop room, under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court as per order dated 22.01.2012 ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3), while rejecting the plea for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-IV), Kozhikode as R.C.A.No.28 of 2018 invoking the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition has been filed under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 20.03.2019, while ordering notice to the respondents, this Court stayed the execution proceedings in R.C.P.No.119 of 2012 for a period of two weeks. The order of stay was extended from time to time and is still in force.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. Eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court under Section

11(2)(b) as well as Section 11(3) of the Act was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, the petitioners deposited the entire arrears of rent, and therefore, the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), for the reason of arrears of rent, lost significance in the light of the provisions under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.

5. The need urged by the 1st respondent, which is a private limited company, is that the petition schedule shop rooms in the occupation of the petitioners is in a dilapidated condition and it is to be demolished in order to provide a convenient access to the multi- storied building proposed to be constructed by the 1st respondent in the 20 cents of land behind the said room. The 1st respondent by producing Ext.A9 building permit and plan obtained from the Kozhikode Corporation and through the oral testimony of PW1, who is the Managing Director of the 1st respondent, attempted to establish that the need urged was a bona fide one. The petitioners resisted the claim by contending that convenient access to the proposed construction is already available along the open area on the southern side and the demand for demolition of the petition schedule shop room lacks bona fides. The petitioners further contended that the room on the southern side of the petition schedule shop rooms is in the possession of the 1st respondent and if more wide access is required, demolition of that room will serve the purpose.

6. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners that the 1st respondent is a company, whereas Ext.A9 building permit was obtained in the name of PW1 in his personal capacity, and therefore, the need put forward by the 1st respondent company is unsustainable. This contention was explained away by the Appellate Authority. Exts.A2 and A3 are the sale deeds by virtue of which the 1st respondent purchased the properties in question. PW1, being the Managing Director, obtaining a building permit in his name, can only be described for and on behalf of the company. Therefore, it cannot be found any inconsistency in obtaining the building permit in the name of PW1 and that, at any rate, it is not a reason to doubt the case of the 1st respondent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the building as per Ext.A9 is nearing completion and providing convenient access to the building after demolishing the petition schedule shop room is a necessary requirement. Exts.C1 and C2 are reports submitted by the Commissioners. Ext.C2(a) is a plan containing all details of the structures now existing in the property in the possession of the 1st respondent. Retaining the petition schedule shop room as such, the maximum width of the access possible to the 20 cents of land, where