R. Bhaskaran, J.

The landlord is the petitioner in this revision. He filed R.C.P.No.5 of 1996 under SS.11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(10) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority dismissed the application on all the grounds. Though there was no specific claim made under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act, both the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded, on the basis, that the claim for eviction was also made under that provision. Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) are intended for different purposes. Whereas under S.11 (3) eviction is required for bona fide need of own occupation or for occupation by any member of the family depending on the landlord, S.11(4)(iv) is intended in a case where the building requires reconstruction and the tenant gets a right to get an equivalent, area in the reconstructed building. In this case, not only the landlord did not quote S.11 (4)(iv) in the Rent Control Petition but he also did not offer either in the petition or in evidence any portion of the reconstructed, building to the tenant. Therefore, this was a case where the courts below should have considered the question of bona fide need alone. But having considered the case of the landlord under S.11(4)(iv) also we will advert to that aspect as well in this order. The material averments in the Rent Control Petition are as follows.

2. The tenancy commenced on 25-11-1980 at Rs.600/- per month. There were earlier Rent Control Petitions on the ground of arrears of rent, the orders on which were got vacated by subsequent payment. The rent was increased to Rs.25/- per day in 1984. From 1-1-1995 onwards, the rent was in arrears. The tenant has materially altered the nature and character of the building by filling soil in the rooms on the north and western sides of the building and reduced the height of the roof, removed the doors in the inner side of the rooms and refitted the same according to his wish and removed wooden doors and fitted glass panes. One of the petitioner's sons, Ramabhadran working in a Gulf Country is intending to return to India and commence, a hotel business in the building that may be newly constructed after demolishing the existing building. For that purpose, he has no place of his own and he is depending on the petitioner for accommodation and the petitioner bona fide needs the same for his occupation. He has, also stated that the condition of the building is such that it needs reconstruction. It is situated in an important locality. The petitioner has submitted a plan to the local authority and it will be produced as and when it is obtained. He has got the capacity to make such construction.

3. In the objections filed by the tenant all the averments in the Rent Control Petition are specifically denied. There is no arrears of rent and no material alterations made to the building The bona fide need alleged is a cock and bull story. He has no such need. He is not depending on the father for the purpose of the building. The petitioner has another building in his possession in the very same town. The tenant is depending on the income from the petitioner building and there is no other building available for him to occupy.

4. As already mentioned, both the courts found against the claim of the landlord. The points for consideration are:

i) whether there was arrears of rent and denial of eviction under S.11(2)(b) was justified.

ii) whether the tenant used the building in such a way as to reduce its utility permanently.

iii) whether the bona fide need set up is genuine.

iv) whether an order of eviction can be granted under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act.

Point No.1

5. Ext.A2 notice was sent on 2-11-1995 claiming rent in arrears from 1-1-1995. Therefore, the rent in arrears is of ten months at the rate of Rs.25/- per day. The total amount was calculated at Rs.7,675/- out of which the tenant paid property tax of Rs.2,276.80. There is no other payment found by the courts below. Therefore, it is