Radhakrishnan, J.

The following questions arise for consideration in these cases.

a) Is it imperative that the additional accommodation sought for should be sequel or supplementary to the existing requirement of the landlord?

b) Whether demolition of a wall by the tenant which does not form part of the tenanted premises would fall within the mischief of Section 11(4) (ii) of Act 2 of 1965?

2. Rent control petition No. 16/98 was filed under Sections 11(2) (b), 11(8) and 11(4) (ii) of Act 2 of 1965. Building was leased out on 6.9.1983 wherein tenant is conducting a tailoring shop. Landlord wanted the tenanted premises for starting a business in electrical goods and for its expansion and hence eviction was sought for under Section 11(8) of the Act. Complaining that on 3.10.1997 tenant demolished a partition wall constructed by the landlord on the northern side of the veranda situated in front of the tenanted premises, petition was laid under Section 11(4) (ii) of the Act as well.

3. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bonafides in the plea. Petitioner-landlord has stated that he required additional accommodation for the purpose of starting business in electrical goods. When he was examined he stated that he wanted the tenanted premises for keeping tables and chairs for hiring and not for expansion of electrical business. With regard to the claim under Section 11(4)(ii), tenant took up the stand that the landlord has not raised the plea that the tenant used the building in such a manner as to reduce or destroy its value and utility materially and permanently. Further it is also stated that landlord has constructed a wall in front of the tenanted premises so as to obstruct its view. On the complaint filed by the tenant, according to the tenant, landlord himself demolished the same. In any view, such an act, tenant submits, would not fall within the ambit of Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

4. Landlord got himself examined in this case as P.W.1 and produced Exts. A1 to A4 documents. Tenant got himself examined as R.W.1 and produced documents marked as Exts.B1 to B6. Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11 (4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965. However, the plea for eviction under Section 11(8) was rejected. Aggrieved by that part of the order tenant filed R.C.A.No.144 of 1999 and landlord filed R.C.A. No 167 of 1999. Appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the landlord was partly allowed and eviction was ordered under Section 11(4)(ii). Claim for eviction sought by the landlord under Section 11(8) was rejected. Aggrieved by the order in R.C.A.No.167 of 1999, tenant has preferred C.R.P. No.999 of 2001 and against the order in R.C.A.No.144 of 1999 the tenant preferred C.R.P.No.843 of 2001. Landlord preferred C.R.P.No.1533 of 2001 against the finding under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

5. Before examining the claim under Section 11 (4)(ii), we may examine the claim of the landlord under Section 11(8). Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that there is no bonafides in the claim under Section 11(8) and dismissed the petition. Burden of proving that the landlord bonafide requires additional accommodation for his personal use is on the landlord. Section 11(8) can be invoked only when landlord is in possession of a portion of the building and rest of that is required for additional accommodation. Section 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. Such inconsiste