1. What is the true scope and ambit of the protection available to a tenant under the 'second proviso' to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965? Have the courts below erred in granting protection to the respondents on the ground that a suitable building is not available to her in the locality? These are the two questions that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition which has been placed before the Full Bench. The facts may be briefly noticed.

2. On August 27,1974 the ground floor of the building in dispute was given on lease for a period of three months to the first respondent. The second respondent is her husband. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 350. The premises were given on lease for the purpose of conducting an agency of the Kottakkal Arya Vaidyasala. A copy of the lease deed is on record as Ext.A1.

3. In the year 1980, the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondents. It was inter-alia alleged that he needed the premises for bona fide personal occupation. It was alleged that the tenant was in possession of another building which was suitable for carrying on business as contemplated under S.11(4)(iii). A copy of the plaint is Ext.A3. In this petition, the Rent Control Court had sustained the landlord's claim of bona fide need. However, it was held that in view of the second proviso to S.11(3), the tenant was not liable to be evicted. Still further, it was found that the ingredients of S.11(4)(iii) were not satisfied. Thus, the petition was dismissed. A copy of the judgment is on record as Ext.A-4. Both sides filed appeals. These were dismissed vide judgment at Ext.A-5. Even the revision petitions had met with the same fate.

4. On March 4, 1992 the landlord again served a notice on the tenant indicating that he needed the premises for personal occupation. There were 15 buildings in the locality. The details of the buildings were given. These were available to the tenant. Thus, he called upon the respondents to vacate the premises. A copy of this notice is Ext.A-13 on the record. The tenant sent a reply to the notice through her counsel vide Ext.A-14. It was inter alia stated that out of the 15 buildings mentioned by the landlord, 'several buildings' were not vacant. More than 2000 sq.ft area was available in the premises in dispute. However, there was no other building with these facilities. Still further, it was also stated that the rent was 1.75 per sq.foot. The other buildings were given on rent for Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 3 lakhs as deposit. There are no suitable rooms available in the shopping complex, which is under construction. Thus, the respondents were not liable to vacate the building. On receipt of the reply, the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondents in March 1992. The provisions of S.11(3) were invoked. It was inter alia alleged that the landlord was a qualified doctor. He needed the premises for setting up his practice.

5. The tenant resisted the claim on the ground that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. The respondents also claimed protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.

6. The landlord's petition was decided by the Rent Control Court vide its judgment dated November 26, 1993. It was found that the need of the landlord was bona fide. However, the tenants' claim for protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) was sustained. Thus, the petition was dismissed. Both sides filed appeals. These were disposed of by a common judgment by the appellate court vide order dated July 9, 1998. Both the appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment, the landlord has filed the present revision petition.

7. The petition was posted for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, Counsel for the parties had argued the matter and referred to certain decisions. In particular, it was pointed that in Varkey v. Raman Pillai (1981 KLT 213) and Krishnankunju Reveendran v. Sukukmara Pillai (