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