ORDER : A. Hariprasad, J. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the authorities below that he is liable to be evicted under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), 3. Respondents are co-owners in respect of the petition schedule room. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the tenant. Respondents contended that vacant possession of the petition schedule building is required for conducting a business for and on behalf of the husband of the first respondent, who is dependent on her. It is also contended that they have no other building to start the business for the first respondent's husband. Further, they would contend that other suitable buildings are available in the locality for the revision petitioner/tenant to shift his business. It is the further case of the respondents that the tenant has other sources of income. 4. The tenant filed a counter statement disputing the bona fide need set up in the petition. According to him, the husband of the first respondent is not a dependent of her. He would also contend that no suitable building is available for him in the locality and he lives on the income derived from the trade. 5. The authorities below, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, entered a finding that the bona fide need set up in the petition has been established and the tenant could not prove his entitlement to claim the benefit of second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. 6. The appellate authority also after re-appreciating the evidence, entered a similar finding. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the respondents are not family members but they are strangers. Fact that they are co-owners of the building is not in dispute. It is therefore argued that the first respondent's husband cannot be said to be a dependent of the second respondent. It is also pointed out that in the absence of any testimony of the respondents themselves, the bona fides of the need could not have been tested by cross examining them. PW1 is the husband of the first respondent on whose behalf eviction is sought for. It is also pointed out that in the absence of any testimony of the respondents themselves, the bona fides of the need could not have been tested by cross examining them. PW1 is the husband of the first respondent on whose behalf eviction is sought for. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contended that non-examination of the respondents is a serious flaw in this case disentitling the them to claim eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 8. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents contended that there are specific averments in the petition that the second respondent also consented to the need of the first respondent's husband to start a business in the petition schedule room. It is pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that law is settled that one co-owner can seek eviction of a tenant without the junction of other co-owners, unless the other co-owners object to the eviction petition. To buttress this contention, a decision reported in John v. District Court ( 1992 (1) KLT 803 ) is pressed into service. It is trite law that every co-owner is an owner of each and every parcel of co-ownership property insofar as a third party is concerned. Catena of decisions are available for the proposition that one co-owner can file a petition for eviction of a tenant without the junction of other co-owners as long as other co-owners have no objection regarding the rights of the suing co-owner. 9. In the counter statement, there is no contention raised by the revision petitioner that the second respondent has objection in claiming eviction on behalf of first petitioner's husband. In the evidence also, nothing is brought out to find that the second respondent has any objection in claiming eviction on behalf of the first petitioner's husband. In the absence of such an allegation in the pleadings and evidence, we are of the view that the authorities below are justified in finding bona fide need in favour of the respondents and therefore, we find no illegality or impropriety in the concurrent orders. In the result, we find the revision petition is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed. In the absence of such an allegation in the pleadings and evidence, we are of the view that the authorities below are justified in finding bona fide need in favour of the respondents and therefore, we find no illegality or impropriety in the concurrent orders. In the result, we find the revision petition is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner is an age old person and doing business in the premises, we allow him ten months time from today to vacate the premises on fulfilling the following conditions : The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court in three weeks unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises within a period of ten months from today. He shall clear off all the arrears of rent within a period of one month and continue to deposit rent at the agreed rate till he actually vacates the premises. If any of the above conditions is breached, the execution court is free to execute the order of eviction without regarding the time stipulation in the order passed by this Court. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.