JUDGMENT : MARY JOSEPH, J. 1. The common judgment dated 21.11.2016 in R.C.A.Nos.62/2011 and 61/2011 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II, Thalassery) is assailed in the captioned revision petitions on the ground of the illegality, impropriety and perversity, which vitiate it. 2. The facts involved in the Rent Control Petitions preferred as R.C.P.Nos.9/2010 and 7/2010 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Payyannur being relevant and important for arriving at a just decision are narrated in brief as hereunder:- The defeated tenants before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery are revision petitioners in the Rent Control Revisions on hand. 3. The tenanted premises is a building bearing No. PMC XXI-1255 consisting of three segments and by virtue of three separate lease deeds, the owners of those segments have been let out to the tenants. By virtue of a registered partnership deed dated 12.12.96 of SRO, Payyannur, properties scheduled therein as 'A' had been allotted to Mr.Parammal Chappayil Ahammed Haji and 'B' had been allotted to one Mr.Musthafa Haji. 'B' Schedule had been assigned by Mr.Musthafa Haji in favour of Mr.Parrammel Chappayil Ahammed Haji as per Janmam deed dated 25.3.2008 and thereby latter has become the owner of both 'A' and 'B' schedule of the partition deed. 'A' and 'B' schedules have been leased out by its owner to tenants by virtue of kachits executed by him and those are marked in evidence as Exts.A1 and A2. 'A' schedule was leased out for a monthly rent of Rs.5680/-and 'B' schedule for Rs.993/-. The third segment covered by 'C' schedule to the partition deed was owned by respondents 1 to 7 and it was leased out to the tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.2187/-by virtue of Ext.A38 kachit. Therefore, the tenanted premises is a single shop room bearing No.XXI/1255 of Payyannur Municipality and is comprised of 3 segments and occupied by tenants on the strength of three kachits (Exts.A1, A2 and A38). The tenants were conducting hotel business therein under the name and style 'Top Star Hotel'. 4. Sri.Parammal Chappayil Ahammed Haji, as landlord filed R.C.P.No.7/2010 before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur for evicting the tenants from the two segments covered by Exts.A1 and A2 kachits and Smt.K.P.Kadeeja and others as landlords filed R.C.P.No.9/2010 for evicting the tenants occupying the third segment covered by Ext.A38 kachit. 5. 4. Sri.Parammal Chappayil Ahammed Haji, as landlord filed R.C.P.No.7/2010 before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur for evicting the tenants from the two segments covered by Exts.A1 and A2 kachits and Smt.K.P.Kadeeja and others as landlords filed R.C.P.No.9/2010 for evicting the tenants occupying the third segment covered by Ext.A38 kachit. 5. Eviction was sought by the landlords on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need, material alteration of the tenanted premises and sublease. The bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition was that of one Mr.Muhammed Kunhi, S/o.late Ahammed Haji, who according to the landlord, was in need of vacant possession of the tenanted premises for commencing a hotel business in partnership with one Mr.Aboobacker Siddique, who is the son of one of the co-owners of a portion of the tenanted premises covered by 'B' Schedule to the partition deed. The petitioners also claimed that the person in bona fide need has the necessary experience and knowledge to conduct the hotel business. The further allegation of the landlords was that the tenanted premises have been sublet to the son of Smt.Aliyambath Subaida, the original tenant, who has become one among the co-tenants on her death. Yet another allegation was also raised to the effect that the tenants in occupation of the tenanted premises made alteration in the building so as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently. The allegation lastly and finally raised was that the tenants had defaulted the payment of contractual rent with effect from 15.10.2003 and kept those in arrears without lawful excuse. 6. The R.C.Ps. have been resisted by the tenants by raising specific contentions in the objections filed to the following effect:- The tenanted premises was originally let out to one Kothayil Usman and Kalaroth Hameed by Sri.Parammal Chappayil Ahammed Haji and Parammel Chappayil Sri. Ahammed Haji as per kachit dated 6.2.1981 for a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- for running a hotel under the name and style 'Top Star Hotel'. Thereafter, co-tenant Kallaroth Hameed released his share of tenancy in favour of Kolathayil Usman as per endorsement dated 25.6.1983 on the lease deed. Business flourished considerably and therefore, enhancement of monthly rent was demanded by the landlords and it was enhanced to Rs.4000/-. Petition was filed as R.C.P.No.1/1993 before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur seeking eviction on the grounds of bona fide need, sublease, arrears of rent and material alteration. Business flourished considerably and therefore, enhancement of monthly rent was demanded by the landlords and it was enhanced to Rs.4000/-. Petition was filed as R.C.P.No.1/1993 before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur seeking eviction on the grounds of bona fide need, sublease, arrears of rent and material alteration. Order of eviction was passed in RCP No.1/93 and the same was taken up in appeal. Thereafter, the landlords abandoned their claim for eviction. Matter was settled and the tenant Kolathayil Usman continued in possession of the tenanted premises under a separate kachit executed on 1.6.1997 by landlords on one part and Usman and his wife Aliyambath Safiya as tenants on the other part. It is not clear, as to which portion of the tenanted premises, the landlords seek eviction. In RCP No.12/2008 filed earlier by the landlord and several others, only 31/8 cents was shown as owned by all of them. In R.C.P.No.9/2010 also, the extent of the tenanted premises is shown as 31/8 cents. But, the petition schedule shows the extent of the tenanted premises as ½ cents in excess to 31/8 cents and therefore, the identity of the property sought to be evicted is not clear. Rent was paid up to August, 2008 and on account of the refusal of the landlord to receive the rent tendered, it fall into arrears. After the filing of RCP No.12/2008, rent for four months, from August to December, 2008 was deposited by the tenants, but it was not withdrawn. The tenant has paid entire arrears from September, 2008 till November, 2010 and therefore, there is no arrears of rent. Petitioner's son Muhammed Kunhi is having his own business at Payyannur Town and being very affluent, the need projected is not a bona fide one. Several other rooms are available in the locality for him to start the business. He is not a dependent of the landlord. The income derived from the hotel business run by the first respondent in the tenanted premises is his main source of livelihood and if evicted, he will be deprived of that. The original tenant Mrs.Safia was conducting hotel business in the premises. On the death of her husband issueless, Sri.Mohammed Sajid was treated by Mrs.Safia as her own son and he was helping Mrs.Safia in the conduct of the business. The original tenant Mrs.Safia was conducting hotel business in the premises. On the death of her husband issueless, Sri.Mohammed Sajid was treated by Mrs.Safia as her own son and he was helping Mrs.Safia in the conduct of the business. They had executed a partnership deed and the hotel business was run in partnership by them till Mrs.Safia's death. After the death of Mrs.Safia, Aliyambath Subaida had inherited the tenancy right and continued to conduct the hotel business. During the month of Ramzan 2009, some minor works were done inside the hotel for the smooth running of the hotel business. The landlords projected it as material alteration affecting the value and utility of the building and filed a suit for injunction as O.S.No.119/2009. Temporary injunction was sought in the suit, but it was declined. 7. Respondent No.2 had also filed a counter statement denying all the pleadings of the landlord in the petition seeking eviction. According to him, false averments are made by the landlord in the petition. The claims for eviction was raised only as a ruse for eviction, intended thereby to let it out for higher rent, after obtaining those in vacant surrender from the present tenants. They are depending mainly on the income derived from the business run in the tenanted premises for livelihood and on ordering eviction, they will be thrown out to streets and the workers under them would be put to untold miseries. 8. The Rent Control Petitions 7/2010 and 9/2010 were tried together and a common order of eviction was passed which reads:- “In the result, R.C.P.s 7/10 and 9/10 are allowed under Section 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the respondents are directed to surrender the vacant possession of the petition schedule building in both R.C.P.s to the petitioners within one month from the date of this order with costs.” 9. The aggrieved tenants preferred appeals as RCA Nos.61 and 62 of 2011 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. The appeals were also heard together and a common judgment was passed on 21.11.2016 to the following effect:- “In the result, (1) RCA 61/2011 and 62/2011 are allowed in part without costs. (2) Order of eviction under Section 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act is hereby confirmed. (3) Order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act is hereby set aside. (2) Order of eviction under Section 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act is hereby confirmed. (3) Order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act is hereby set aside. (4) The tenants and sub tenant shall surrender the petition schedule building in RCP 07/2010 and RCP 09/2010, to the respective landlords within a period of one month from this date.” 10. Revision has not been preferred by the landlord against the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, which has been reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and thereby it has become final. The tenants who are aggrieved by the order of eviction under Sections 11(2) (b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) are before us in revision. 11. The grounds on which the exercise of revisional jurisdiction are sought are:- 1. In the schedule appended to the RCP describing the tenanted premises, the area was shown ½ cents in excess of the actual extent of 31/8 cents. The tenant had denied the title of the landlord in respect of the ½ cents, but the court below failed to delve into the same as a preliminary issue prior to venture to determine on the various grounds based on which eviction was sought. Thus, the court below has caused prejudice to the tenants. The ½ cents was claimed in excess of the original premises let out lease and that actually was in the possession of the tenant. The court below is erred in not delving into the preliminary issue before venturing to decide on the question whether an order of eviction requires to be passed on the grounds projected therein by the landlord. 2. The landlord was actually in possession of 31/8 cents of property and therefore, denial of title of ½ cents claimed in excess of the extent of the tenanted premises covered under the original kachit is a bona fide one and it ought to have been considered as a preliminary issue. The Rent Control Court having not done so and the Rent Control Appellate Authority having confirmed the same, the concurrent findings of the authorities below are liable to be interfered with. 3. In R.C.P.No.12/2010, eviction was not sought on the ground of arrears of rent. Had there been arrears of rent there must have been a claim by the landlord for eviction on that ground. 3. In R.C.P.No.12/2010, eviction was not sought on the ground of arrears of rent. Had there been arrears of rent there must have been a claim by the landlord for eviction on that ground. Therefore, eviction on the ground of arrears of rent ought not to have been allowed by the authorities below. 4. The authorities below grossly erred in concluding that the identification of the tenanted premises is not affected on the reason of the description of the tenanted premises showing area excess than what was actually there. According to the counsel, the extent of the tenanted premises having not been stated in the kachits marked in evidence as Exts.A1, A2 and A38, it would materially and prejudicially affect the interest of the tenants. 5. PW3, for whose bona fide need the vacant surrender of the tenanted premises was sought is well off and affluent having own business establishments and in view of the abandonment of the previous similar demands of eviction made by the landlords in RCP No.1/1993 and RCP No.12/2008, the court below ought not to have arrived at a finding that the need projected by the landlord is a bona fide one and eviction ordered on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. 6. Exts.P11 and P19 if properly appreciated, the authorities below ought to have found that the landlord was having vacant rooms in his possession and the benefit of the first proviso would have been granted to the tenant. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have found that there was no parting of possession of the tenanted premises to the first petitioner in R.C.P.No.7/2010. The first petitioner in R.C.P.No. 7/2010 is none other than the son of the tenant Mrs. Aliyambath Subaida and on her death, the tenancy right had been devolved on him and the business is being run by him therein in partnership with the original tenant Mrs.Safiya. The authorities below failed to appreciate those aspects and thus erred in passing a finding that the tenanted premises had been sublet by the original tenant to the first petitioner and thereby ordering eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. 7. Sri.Asaf Ali and Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the respective counsel were heard on their rival contentions on behalf of the tenants and the landlords. 7. Sri.Asaf Ali and Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the respective counsel were heard on their rival contentions on behalf of the tenants and the landlords. The evidence on record is appreciated in the backdrop of the grounds which are made a mention hereinabove. The evidence of the landlord on record includes the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A53. The evidence of the tenant on record takes in the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and documentary evidence as Exts.B1 to B20. 8. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of the partition deed. It is an undisputed factum that the tenanted premises is comprised of three segments. The title in respect of two segments is derived by the landlords from Ext.A3. The third segment was purchased by one among the landlord by virtue of a janmam deed, the certified copy of which is available in evidence as Ext.A4. Thus Parammel Chappayil Sri.Ahammed Haji became the owner of two segments, one by devolution and the other by purchase. He leased out those to the tenants by Exts.A1 and A2 kachits. The landlord who derived title of Schedule 'C' (the 3rd segment) by virtue of Ext.A3 had let the same to the tenants by Ext.A38 kachit. These aspects are not disputed by the tenants. The facts that the original tenants died and the tenancy right got devolved upon their legal heirs and the business in the tenanted premises was continued by them, are also not disputed by the tenants. The R.C.Ps. have been preferred by the legal heirs of the original landlords. 9. The main thrust of argument of Sri.Asaf Ali, the learned counsel for the tenants was with regard to the excess extent of ½ cents shown in the Schedule to the R.C.Ps. over and above the actual extent of 31/8 cents. According to the counsel, a contention was taken by the landlord specifically denying title of the landlords over the ½ cents, but the authorities below failed to advert to that. According to him, the Rent Control Court, Payyannur ought to have raised that as a preliminary issue and heard on it primarily prior to adverting to the other issues. The learned counsel invited our attention to Ext.A3 to contend that 'C' schedule to that clearly describe the extent of the property in which a portion or segment of the tenanted premises is situated as 25/8 cents. The learned counsel invited our attention to Ext.A3 to contend that 'C' schedule to that clearly describe the extent of the property in which a portion or segment of the tenanted premises is situated as 25/8 cents. According to him, R.C.P. Nos.07/10 and 09/10 are filed seeking eviction of the tenants from the entire tenanted premises that comprise of three segments and the total extent of property covered by those three segments as 31/8 cents. The counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that at the time of filing R.C.P. No.12/08, the landlords had described the total extent of the tenanted premises as 8 cents and eviction was sought only with respect to that. According to him, in R.C.P. Nos.7/10 and 9/10, eviction is sought in respect of the entire area covered by the tenanted premises. In schedule to R.C.P. No.9/10, the total extent is shown as 1/8 cents whereas in R.C.P. No.7/10, the total extent is shown as 318 + ½ cents. Therefore, dispute was raised in the counter statement to R.C.P. regarding title of the landlord with respect to the excess area of ½ cents shown in the schedule appended to RCP No.7/2010, and his grievance was that the dispute with respect to the title of the same was not properly adverted to by both the authorities below. According to him, in view of that erroneous description of the tenanted premises in the schedule to R.C.P. No.7/10 identification of the same would be difficult at the time of execution of any order of eviction and that would prejudice the tenant. 12. It is true that ½ cents is shown in excess in the schedule appended to R.C.P. No.7/10. There is no dispute for either parties that eviction was sought in R.C.P. Nos.7/10 and 9/10 in respect of the entire tenanted premises comprised of three segments and covered by Exts.A1, A2 and A38 kachits. Admittedly, hotel business is run in the tenanted premises by the present landlords jointly. Admittedly, the three segments bear a common building number as PMC XXI-1255. The landlords' claim of ownership of the property wherein tenanted premises are situated is based on Ext.A3 partnership deed and Ext.A4 jenmam deed. Landlords' claim of ownership will be totally based on the extent of property covered by those documents and nothing more than that. Admittedly, the three segments bear a common building number as PMC XXI-1255. The landlords' claim of ownership of the property wherein tenanted premises are situated is based on Ext.A3 partnership deed and Ext.A4 jenmam deed. Landlords' claim of ownership will be totally based on the extent of property covered by those documents and nothing more than that. The tenants have no dispute with regard to the leasing out of building bearing No.XXI/1255 which incorporates three segments, in favour of them by Exts.A1, A2 and A38 kachits. 13. On an anxious glance of the schedule to R.C.P. No.7/10, we are also convinced that ½ cents is shown therein, in excess of the actual extent of 318 cents. But, the number which the building bears is correctly shown as PMC XXI-1255. Therefore, it is convincingly clear that eviction was sought in R.C.P. Nos.7/10 and 9/10 by the respective landlords of the three segments of the building which bear a single number as PMC XXI-1255. It is the building number that is relevant for identification purposes in a petition seeking eviction and the extent of the landed property, wherein it is situated, has no relevance as in cases involving disputes relating to property. In the petition seeking eviction, identification of the building leased out needs to be done with the number it bears and not by measuring the property within which it is situated. In the case on hand, the tenanted premises is described with specific reference to the number it bears and there will not be any difficulty to identify the same during execution proceedings as urged by the learned counsel for the tenants. The apprehension of the learned counsel that the Amin would find it difficult to identify the tenanted building on account of the erroneous description of the extent of the property wherein it is situated is devoid of any basis and is only liable to be discarded as untenable. In view of the discussions hereinabove made, we do not find any valid reason to take the denial of title of ½ cents of property as a bona fide one, warranting its adjudication in the case on hand as a preliminary issue. In view of the discussions hereinabove made, we do not find any valid reason to take the denial of title of ½ cents of property as a bona fide one, warranting its adjudication in the case on hand as a preliminary issue. Title of the landlord in respect of the building bearing No. PMC XXI-1255 and the factum of leasing out of those in favour of the tenants by kachits executed as Exts.A1, A2 and A38 having not been denied by the tenants, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The Rent Control Court, Payyannur has adverted to the contention raised by the tenants with regard to the denial of title of half cents of property, and discussed elaborately on its basis in its order dated 14.1.2011. When the findings of the Rent Control Court were taken before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in challenge, it also concurred with the same. Having convinced that the denial of title in respect of ½ cents, in no way hamper the identification of the tenanted premises that the authorities below went on to hold the same as not a bona fide one. As already stated, the finding is proper, legal and correct and we are declined to interfere with that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, which we are called upon to exercise by the tenants. 14. Challenge has also been raised by the tenants on the concurrent findings of the court below on arrears of rent, bona fide need and sub-lease. The landlord has raised a claim that rent was in arrears and eviction was sought on the ground. The tenants have raised a plea of discharge of rent, but failed to produce and mark receipts evidencing payment of rent. It is in such a circumstance that the Rent Control Court, Payyannur found basis for the claim of the landlord that the tenant had defaulted payment of rent and rent arrears are due from them to the landlord. Accordingly, eviction was ordered under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in both the Rent Control Petitions. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found merits in the claim of the landlord on the same reasoning and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Interference is totally unwarranted and the claim of the tenant for that is discarded. 15. Accordingly, eviction was ordered under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in both the Rent Control Petitions. The Rent Control Appellate Authority found merits in the claim of the landlord on the same reasoning and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Interference is totally unwarranted and the claim of the tenant for that is discarded. 15. The landlord had also sought eviction of the tenants from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide need for PW2, who is the son of one among the landlords. Apart from PW2, a witness was also examined to prove the bona fides in the need. The tenants resisted the claim for bona fide need stating that since the landlord had raised similar claims on previous occasions, and later on abandoned those and bona fides cannot be fastened to his claim. The contention of the tenants cannot be taken to have any merits, since the bona fide need has to be tested on the basis of the materials available at the relevant time and not those something procured in future. The abandonment of petition seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need on previous occasions cannot be taken to have any impact on the bona fide need that is projected at a later point of time. Moreover, eviction was sought in the petition seeking eviction filed earlier not for the bona fide need of PW2, but for the need of the son of another landlord, who is a co-owner. It is on appreciation of the oral evidence let in by PW2 and PW3, which remained uncontroverted on material particulars that the Rent Control Court found the need of PW2 raised by the landlord as a bona fide one. In the event of any satisfactory evidence not being let in by the tenants, the first and second proviso have also been found against them by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also found bona fides in the need projected by the landlord and accordingly, concurred with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. We could not see any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence in the above regard and accordingly interference with the same is declined. 16. We could not see any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence in the above regard and accordingly interference with the same is declined. 16. The landlord's claim for eviction on the ground of subletting was resisted by the tenants contending that the first petitioner is a legal heir of the deceased original tenant, and he is conducting hotel business in partnership with one among the original tenants. A partnership deed was produced to establish the same, but the tenant failed to prove the same. The specific plea of the first respondent was that she is conducting hotel business in the tenanted premises and her son, the third respondent, is helping her. Whereas, the plea of the second respondent was that the third respondent is an employee in the hotel business being run by himself and the first respondent. Yet another plea was also raised by respondents 1 and 3 in the counter filed that the original tenant Mrs.Safiya and the third respondent were conducting the business as partners till the former's death. But, during cross-examination the tenant as RW1 had stated that the hotel was run by the third respondent alone and he is in exclusive possession of the premises. On the basis of the said evidence, and on the failure of the tenants to prove the partnership deed that the Rent Control Court found merits in the averment of the landlord regarding subletting and accordingly, eviction was ordered in favour of the landlord under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. When the aforesaid findings have been taken up in challenge, the Rent Control Appellate Authority also found merits in the claim of the landlord in that regard and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court on sublease. 17. When the aforesaid findings have been taken up in challenge, the Rent Control Appellate Authority also found merits in the claim of the landlord in that regard and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court on sublease. 17. The dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC)] that only when a finding of fact recorded by the court/authority below is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, it is open to correction and then only, this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, could consider or examine the evidence, is relevant in the context. 18. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the tenants failed to point to us any of the reasons projected as grounds by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, to consider or re-appreciate the evidence to correct the findings of facts by the authorities concerned and to set aside the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 19. Counsel for the revision petitioner as a last submission sought for the grant of some time to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. According to him, the workers of the hotel are having school going children and an immediate shifting would cause prejudice to them. Taking note of the submissions so made, we feel it appropriate to grant some time for the tenants to surrender vacant possession of the building. The request is opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. However, considering the fact that the tenants are conducting hotel business in the tenanted premises, the difficulty of their workers as projected by them and also taking into account of the time required for identifying and taking on rent a suitable building to shift the hotel business, we are inclined to grant time up to 31st January, 2019, but subject to the following conditions. In the result, it is ordered as follows:- (1)The Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. In the result, it is ordered as follows:- (1)The Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. (2)The revision petitioners/tenants are granted time up to 31st January, 2019 to surrender the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords on condition that they shall swear to affidavits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file the same before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur in R.C.P. No. 7/2010 and 9/2010, unconditionally undertaking therein to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords on or before the said date. It shall be a further condition for the grant of such time that the tenants shall pay all arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid and continue to pay the rent in respect of the premises without any delay or default to the landlords until vacant possession is surrendered. If the tenants commit default in fulfilling any of the above conditions, they shall forfeit the benefit of the above order.