Sankaran, J.

The Revision petitioners-tenants challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The petition schedule building is a part of a larger building. In a major portion of the main building facing Broadway, Ernakulam, a hotel under the name and style “Bharat Coffee House” is being run by Gopalakrishna Rao, husband of the first petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. (The parties are referred as in the Rent Control Petition.) On either side of the entrance to Bharat Coffee house, a telephone booth and milk booth are being run by petitioners 4 and 5, the daughters-in-law of Gopalakrishna Rao. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of Gopalakrishna Rao. In the petition schedule building, a textile shop under the name and style “Indian Saree House” is being run by the tenants.

3. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Petition was allowed only under Section 11(3). The ground under Section 11(8) was apparently not pressed by the landlord at the time of hearing. It is seen recorded in the order of the Rent Control Court that at the time of arguments, the landlord submitted that “they are pursuing the remedy under Section 11(3) only”. The other grounds were found against the landlords. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, the landlords as well as tenants filed Appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appeals were dismissed. The appellate judgment is challenged only by the tenants.

4. Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the tenants contended that petitioners 4 and 5 having stated in the Rent Control Petition that they are in occupation of a portion of the entire building, only Section 11(8) applies and not Section 11(3). Though the contention of the tenants in the objection was that petitioners 4 and 5 are not in occupation of any portion of the building, the authorities below found, on analyzing the evidence, that they are in such occupation. Therefore, on the basis of this finding, we have to consider this contention raised by the tenants. Sri. K.P. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the landlords contended that as found by the authorities below, Section 11(3) would apply. He submitted that Section 11(3) and (8) being mutually exclusive, the landlords did not press the contention under Section 11(8) on the bonafide belief that Section 11(3) would apply.

5. To deal with the above point, it would be convenient to extract subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11 of the Act.

Section 11(3): “A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.” (provisos omitted.)

Section 11(8): “A landlord who is occupying only a part of the 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.”

6. The first proviso to Section 11(3) provides that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. The second proviso to Section 11(3) mandates that the rent Control Court shall not give any direction to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade