Landlords failed to prove bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Buildings Act, as necessary evidence was not presented, leading to restoration of the Rent Control Court's decision.

1. Revision is directed against the judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in R.C.A.20/91. That was an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam in R.C.P. 5/86 filed by respondents 1 to 4 (hereafter referred to as 'landlords') against deceased 5th respondent (hereafter referred as tenant) and revision petitioner who is alleged to be in possession on the strength of a sublease or transfer by the tenant. The original lease was admittedly in favour of the tenant and the subject matter of the lease is a residential cum scooter workshop situated at Valanjamabalam at Ernakulam in Cochin Corporation. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of sublease, bona fide occupation for respondents 2 to 4 and reconstruction. A business under the name and style 'Tyre Resoles (India)" was conducted by the tenant. By A1 letter dated 10-5-60 the tenant informed the first respondent that he had closed down the business and was intending to start a new business in the name "Scooter Garage". By Ext. A2 letter dated 10-7-1966 the first respondent was informed that the tenant had started the new business and requested her to send all future communications and rent receipts in the name of Proprietor, Scooter Garage. Rent receipts were therefore issued in the name of the proprietor of Scooter Garage. The monthly rent was since then enhanced. A shed is alleged to have been constructed unauthorisedly without the knowledge and consent of the landlords. They required the tenant to surrender the premises for their own occupation after constructing a residential house in the premises. They came to know from the reply that the tenant had subleased the premises to revision petitioner. Hence the petition for eviction on the three grounds aforementioned.

2. The tenant in his counter statement admitted the entrustment of the building but contended that revision petitioner is the tenant from 1-5-1966 onwards and that rent thereafter was collected from him. It was further contended that first respondent and her husband knew the proprietor of the Garage, the revision petitioner and rent was received from him. In a separate counter statement revision petitioner, second respondent in the original petition raised identical contentions. In particular, he contended that rent was periodically enhanced and he was paying the rent in his capacity as the Proprietor of Scooter Garage run by him in the premises. He disputed the bona fides of the claim for own occupation and further contended that the building did not require reconstruction.

3. The husband of the first respondent was examined as PW. l. Two other witnesses were examined on the side of the landlords. Both the respondents in the original petition got themselves examined. Large number of documents were also produced on either side. The Rent Control Court by order dated 15-12-1990 rejected the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and sublease. The petition was dismissed with a direction that the landlords will be at liberty to file a separate petition for reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. The landlords carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority, The alleged subtenant, revision petitioner herein filed memorandum of cross objections challenging that part of the order giving permission to the landlords to m