ORDER : Johnson John, J. 1. The concurrent findings and orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short) is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the tenants. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants argued that the original landlords who filed the Rent Control Petition are no more and the bona fide need of the original landlords will not survive to their legal heirs and in the absence of any proceedings to evict the tenants occupying the other rooms in the building, an order of eviction as against the petitioners herein on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act is not legally sustainable. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents herein are the wife and sons of the original first petitioner in the RCP and the bona fide need projected was not purely personal and the same survives even after the death of the original landlords. It is also argued that it is for the landlord to decide the manner in which the building has to be re-constructed and the need for eviction of the remaining tenants requires to be considered only at the time of actual re-construction and there is no illegality or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the appellate authority. 4. The original landlords were son and mother and the bona fide need projected is that the son (original first petitioner) is holding MSW, M. Phil and Ph.D degrees and he is engaged in diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative activities at Bangalore and that his mother (original second petitioner) is aged and is residing alone and therefore, the original first petitioner and his family wants to shift their residence to Punaloor to look after the original second petitioner and that they bona fide requires the petition schedule rooms to start a de-addiction centre and counselling clinic. It is further stated that the building is old and dilapidated and it needs reconstruction. 5. During the pendency of the RCP, the second original petitioner died and during the pendency of the appeal, the first original petitioner died. It is further stated that the building is old and dilapidated and it needs reconstruction. 5. During the pendency of the RCP, the second original petitioner died and during the pendency of the appeal, the first original petitioner died. The specific pleadings in the Rent Control Petition that the wife of the original first petitioner is equally qualified as that of the original first petitioner, is not denied in the objections and therefore, the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority arrived at a conclusion that the widow of the original first petitioner, who is the first respondent herein, is qualified and experienced to start and run the proposed de-addiction centre and counselling clinic and since the need projected is not purely personal, the same will survive even after the death of the original petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the finding of the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority that the need to start the de-addiction centre and counselling clinic by the original first petitioner was not only for his individual behalf but also on behalf of his family. It is in evidence that at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, the intention of the original first petitioner was to settle at his native place and since his wife, who is the first respondent herein, is also equally qualified, the contention of the revision petitioners that the need projected was purely personal and that the same will not survive after the death of the original petitioners is not sustainable. 7. It is pertinent to note that no evidence is adduced by the tenants to prove the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule rooms and it is well settled that the burden is on the tenant to prove both the ingredients of Section 11(3) of the Act. Absence of proceedings seeking eviction of the tenants occupying the other rooms in the building by itself is not sufficient to doubt the bona fide nature of the need for re-construction, as it is for the landlord to consider his requirements for the proposed business and therefore, we find that there is no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority in this regard and that the Rent Control Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. 9. However, the revision petitioners/tenants are granted three months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule rooms, on condition that they shall file an unconditional undertaking before the Rent Control Court, within four weeks from today, that they shall vacate the petition schedule rooms within a period of three months and also shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, within the aforesaid time limit and continue to pay the monthly rent till they vacate the petition schedule room.