O R D E R

K.T.Sankaran, J.

The respondent filed R.C.P.No.189 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode against the petitioners under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition by the order dated 20.7.2015. The revision petitioners/tenants filed R.C.A.No.130 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court under (3) of the Act. In this Revision, the tenants challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

2. The petition schedule building was taken on rent by the father of the tenants on 15.11.1991, on a monthly rent of `1,000/-. The rent was enhanced on mutual consent and the present rate of rent is `2,500/- per month. On the death of the predecessor-in- interest of the revision petitioners, they inherited the tenancy right. The bona fide need put forward by the respondent/landlord is that her son Abdulla and her husband require the petition schedule building for conducting business. Abdulla lost his job abroad and he came back to India. The husband of the landlord is jobless and he wants to aid his son Abdulla to run the business. The son and the husband of the landlord do not have any other business or building in their possession. They are depending on the landlord for the purpose of occupation of the building. The landlord contended that only respondents 4 and 5 are conducting business in the petition schedule building and they do not depend for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. The landlord also contended that there are other suitable buildings available in the locality for the occupation of the tenants.

3. The tenants disputed the bona fide need put forward by the landlord. They also contended that they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. According to the tenants, there is no other suitable building available in the locality for accommodating their business. The tenants also raised a contention that there was a lease agreement dated 27.4.1997, executed between the landlord and the mother of the tenants for and on behalf of the tenants and that is a perpetual lease. It was, therefore, contended that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable.

4. Before the Rent Control Court, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the landlord. On the side of the tenants, the third respondent in the RCP was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked. A Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Control Court who inspected the property on three occasions. The Commissioner filed Exts.C1, C2 and C3 reports and C1(a) sketch.

5. The Rent Control Court negatived the claim of the tenants that the lease was a perpetual one. It was rightly held by the Rent Control Court that no perpetual lease can be created except by registered lease deed. In the present case, there is no such registered lease deed. The Rent Control Court relied on the decision inCannanore Drug House v. Abdul Azeez (2013 KHC 2518 = 2013 (3) KLJ 204) and the decision of the Division Bench in Aniyan T.V. and another v. T.K.Raveendran (2012 (4) KHC 811 (DB)) in this regard.

6. As regards the genuineness of the bona fide need, the Rent Control Court relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the husband of the landlord and PW2 is the son of the landlord. It was held that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 can be relied on and their evidence is not shaken by searching cross examination. The Rent Control Court also took note of the fact that Abdulla, the son of the landlord, has come back to India and his passport (Ext.A5) was cancelled. The Rent Control Court relied