Radhakrishnan, J.

Does the limitation on the right of the landlord against splitting up of the unity and integrity of the tenancy, inhering in the inhibitions of his own contract, visits the assignee of the part of the reversion is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. It is trite law that a landlord cannot split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy and recover possession of a part of the demised premises from the tenant. Law is well settled that where there is a single indivisible contract of tenancy it cannot be split up by a court unless there is statutory provision to that effect or by a contract between the parties. Alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi, means, alienation is favoured by law rather than accumulation and the assignee is clothed with all the rights and liabilities of the assignor. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act however, provides a statutory exception to this rule and enables an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all the rights of the landlord in respect of the portion respecting which the reversion is so assigned subject to the other covenant running with the land. Further while seeking eviction the assignee has to independently show that the tenancy is divisible on facts and to make out grounds available under section 11 of the Rent Act. The inter relationship between Section 109 of the T.P. Act and Section 11 of the Rent Control Act would be explained by us in the later part of this order. For disposal of this case we may refer to the parties petitioner as landlord and respondent as tenant.

3. The petitioner-landlord is a partner of “Ambady Jewellers” situated on the eastern side o the M.O. Road at Thrissur and his brother is the other partner. Jewellery shop is situated on the ground floor of the building. Tenanted premises is situated at its upstair portion and the entire upstair portion of the building was taken on rent by respondent-tenant from Oliyapuram family. Upstair portion bears No.XXV/2214 and XXV/2215 and a verandah. Petitioner-landlord is already the owner of the groundfloor of the building. Upstair portion corresponding to XXV/2214 was purchased by the petitioner-landlord. Petitioner-landlord as we have already indicated is conducting a jewellery shop in the groundfloor of the building along with his brother. There is no sufficient space in the groundfloor to accommodate their goldsmiths. Landlord therefore wanted additional accommodation so as to accommodate their goldsmiths under section 11(8) of the Act. Plea under section 11(3) was also raised. Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority proceeded as if the landlord’s claim is under section 11(8).

4. Tenant resisted the petition stating that the attempt is only a ruse to evict him. Further it is also stated that the tenant is conducting a kuri business having branch offices at various places and that all its branches are controlled by Head Office housed in the schedule premises. Further it is also stated that he has taken out the entire upstair portion from one Oliyapuram Tarwad and that even if his original landlord had sold away a portion of the property to the present landlord, landlord cannot successfully maintain a petition lest it would split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy. Further it was also stated that the tenant was unaware of the assignment and there was no attornment of tenancy by present landlord.

5. Landlord in order to establish his case got himself examined as PW1 and produced Exts.A1 to A6 documents. On the side of the tenant RW-1 was examined. A commission was taken out. C1 is the commission report. C1(a) and C1(b) are the sketches. Commissioner was examined PW-2. Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority concurrently found the need urged by the landlord is bona fide and his requirement of additional accommodation squarely falls under section 11(8) of the Act and ordered eviction. It was also found the hardship which may be caused