ORDER

C.S.DIAS, J.

The revision petitioner was the appellant in RCA No.6/2017 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (in short 'Appellate Authority'), Palakkad. The respondent in this revision petition were the respondents in the above appeal.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, Palakkad, in RCP

No.22/2015. The parties are for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the Rent Control Petition (RCP) as 'petitioners' and 'respondent'.

3. The petitioners had filed the RCP against the respondent, inter alia, pleading as follows: The petition schedule shop room (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'shop room') belonged to the 1 st petitioner and the husband of the 2 nd petitioner as per agreement dated 2.1.1998, the shop room was given on lease to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.1,500/-. The respondent paid rent only up to February, 2013. . since the sid date, the respondent has kept the rent in arrears without any sufficient cause. When the landlord went to the shop room demanding rent, they found a third party doing business in the shop room. On enquiry, it was found that the respondent has given the shop room on sub-lease to a 3 rd party. The respondent has advanced the amount from the third party has sub-leased the shop room for the higher rate of rent without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners. After the death of the 2 nd petitioner's husband, she has financial hardship. She has completed her graduation in Chemistry and has done a diploma course as a Lab Technician. She bona fide needs the shop room to start a laboratory which would ensure her economic stability. The petitioners have no opther buildings in their vacant possession. There are other alternate rooms in the locality which are suitable for the respondent to shift his business. The respondent is not depending on the income derived from the business being carried in the shop room for his livelihood. The petitioners sought vacant possession of the shop room on 30.5.2014 by issuing a registered lawyer notice. Despite receipt of the notice, the respondent has not vacated the shop room. Hence the petitioners are entitled for an order of eviction under Sections 11

(2) (b), 11(3) and 11 (iv)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

4. The RCP was resisted by the respondent, who filed a counter statement, inter alia, pleading as follows: There is no landlord-tenant relationship with the 2 nd petitioner. The 2 nd petitioner is not entitled to urge the ground of bona fide need for evicting the respondent from the shop room. The petitioner does not have the qualification or experience to conduct a laboratory in the shop room as alleged in the RCP. The need projected by the petitioners is only a ruse to evict the respondent. The respondent has not sub-leased the shop room, but his son is carrying on the business in the shop room due to his old age. The respondent has issued a reply notice denying the allegations in the lawyer notice sent by the petitioners. The respondent is depending on the income derived from the business being conducted in the shop room. The petitioners are economically affluent and there is no need or necessity for them to run a business in the shop room after evicting the respondent. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief as claimed in the RCP.

5. The 2 nd petitioner was examined as PW1

and Exts.A1 to A8 were were marked through her.

The respondent was examined as RW1.

6. The Rent Control Court after evaluating the pleadings and evidence on re