Koshy, J.

Whether section 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') mandates that for the purpose of seeking eviction on the need for additional accommodation, need alleged ought to be for the purpose of extension of the same type of business that is carried on in the already occupied portion by the landlord is the question referred to this Full Bench for answer. A division bench of this court referred the above question doubting the ratio of the decision in Purushothaman v. Radhakrishnan (2004 (3) KLT 121). In the above case, it was held as follows:

"S.11 (8) will come into play if the landlord wanted to expand his business for which he requires additional accommodation. In the instant case, what was pleaded in the Rent Control Petition is that landlord wanted additional accommodation for the purpose of electrical business, but, no evidence was adduced to establish that plea.

Further, in the oral deposition landlord stated that he requires the premises for doing the business of lending tables and chairs, altogether a different purpose. ....

Further, claim under S.11 (8) would lie only if the requirement is additional, that is supplemental to the existing user by the landlord. Landlord cannot seek eviction under S.11 (8) for a purpose which is alien to his existing state of affairs. Additional requirement must be supplementary, so as to augment his existing need. The nature of additional requirement should have some nexus with the existing need."

In the above decision, court relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Kanniammal v. Chellaram ((2002) 4 SCC 627). The Apex Court in that case was considering a case arising out of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the relevant provisions, which came up for interpretation by the Apex Court in the said decision, was extracted in paragraph 5 of that judgment.

2. Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act specifically provides as follows:

"A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be." (emphasis supplied).

Therefore, the observation of the Apex Court was with reference to section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act as noticed above. It is differently worded from section 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Section 11 (8) of the Act reads as follows:

"11. Eviction of tenants:-xx xx

(8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use." (emphasis supplied).

It is seen that in Kerala Act, it does not use the words "same purpose" in contra distinction to the provisions contained in section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act.

The words "for the same purpose" are absent in the Kerala Act. The Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Kerala 11 (8) in Davis v. Sebastian (1999 (3) KLT 225-SC = ((1999) 6 SCC 604) and held as follows:

"Now, what is the meaning of the expression 'personal use' in sub-s. (8)? It is a well settled principle of interpretation that words in a statute shall be given their natural, ordinary meaning; nothing should be added to them nor should any word be treated as otiose. Two comprehensive expressions 'additional accommodation' and 'personal use' are employed in sub-s.(8). The expression 'additional accommodation' takes in both residential as well as non-residential buildings. 'Personal use'