Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether mere possession of a part of a building without occupation would satisfy the ingredients of Section 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the Rent Control Petition and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that Section 11(3) was misquoted, facts would indicate that the claim is essentially under Section 11(8). For disposal of the case we will proceed as if the claim raised by the landlord is under section 11(8) of the Act. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. However, Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction under section 11(8).

3. Petition schedule building bearing number XXV/446 lies in front of room No.XXV/445 on the western side, which is in the possession of the original landlord. Petition schedule building has a length of 12 ft. and width of 7 ft. and it was closed on three sides with wooden planks and roofed with asbestos. The whole building which takes in the tenanted premises as well as the portion occupied by the landlord has got road frontage of 13 ft. 8 inches of which portion occupied by the landlord has a width of 7 ft. 4 inches whereas the petition schedule building has a width of 6 ft. 4 inches. After providing cash counter width of the building in the possession of the landlord is only 2 ft. 11 inches. Lack of proper road frontage affects the business carried on by the landlord. This is not a case where landlord requires additional space but he wanted the tenant to vacate to get more road frontage. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the reasoning of the Appellate Authority, which reads as follows:

“It is very evidence that the landlord is not complaining about want of physical space. It is not the plea and the landlord has not complained that the physical space available with him is insufficient to meet his requirement. The only contention is that the petition schedule building which is situated in the front portion of the larger building is affecting his business. According to him, he needs that additional space also for the purpose of running his business properly. …….

The landlord has no case that the space available in building (B) in his possession is insufficient to run the business”.

Appellate Authority noticed that the specific contention of the landlord is that he must be given possession of the tenanted premises in order to enable him to run his business better. Tenant took up the contention that such a requirement would not fall under section 11(8). Tenant submitted that when Section 11 (8) uses the expression “additional accommodation” it must be taken that the need is for physical space for the landlord. Tenant also submitted that landlord who has sufficient area in his possession, cannot claim eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act.

4. We have gone through the pleading in the rent control petition and also the objection filed by the tenant. Tenant has specifically stated that the landlord is not having any business in the adjacent building though he is in possession of the premises. It is trite that burden is on the landlord to show that the need urged under section 11(8) is bonafide. Section 11 (8) having qualified under Section 11 (10) it is imperative for the landlord to show that the requirement is bonafide. The apex court in Kanniamma v. Chellaram (2002 (4) SCC 627) examined the scope of Section 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and held as follows:

“If a landlord is occupying only a part of a residential building he may seek ejectment of the tenant for his requirement of additional accommodation for residential purpose though the tenancy premises are being used by tenant for non-residential purpose. Similarly, a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building for non-residential purpose may have the