The entitlement of the landlord to utilize the additional accommodation to best suit his requirement and the requirement for the Rent Controller to consider the hardship caused to the tenant and the advantage to the landlord before making an eviction order.

1. Leave is granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 2249 of 1994 dated May 20,1998.

3. The appellant is the tenant of respondent No.1 in respect of premises, ward No. 28, Changanacherry (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'). The first respondent filed eviction petition (R.C.P. No. 11 of 1983) against the appellant in the court of the Rent Controller, Kottayam, on three grounds: (i) bona fide requirement for personal occupation - under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (for short'the Act'); (ii) bona fide requirement for personal occupation after reconstruction -under S.11(8) of the Act; and (iii) under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act stating that he intends to demolish and reconstruct the portion for his more beneficial use. The appellant denied bona fide requirement of the first respondent and contested the eviction petition on all the three counts.

4. The learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of the respondent under sub-s. (8) of S.11 as also under clause (iv) of sub-s. (4) of S.11 of the Act. However, he ordered eviction under sub-s. (3) of S.11 holding that bona fide requirement of the first respondent was proved. The findings of the learned rent controller were upheld by the appellate authority in the appeal, filed by the appellant herein, and the appeal was dismissed on June 23, 1987. The appellant carried the matter in revision before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional District Judge on re-appreciating the evidence held that the bona fide requirement of the first respondent was not proved and reversed the order of the appellate authority, on that ground, by allowing the revision on October 18,1993. The first respondent challenged the said order of the learned Additional District Judge by an application under Art.227 of the Constitution, O.P. No. 2249 of 1994, before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge in RCRP No. 16/87 and restored the order of the appellate authority in RCA Nos. 16 and 17 of 1985 confirming the order of the Rent Controller in RCP 11/83 dated January 30,1985. The O.P. was thus allowed on May 20,1998. It is the correctness of that order which is assailed in this appeal.

5. Mr. M.P. Vinod, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that as the first respondent intends to occupy the suit premises not in its present form but after reconstruction, so it cannot be said that he bona fide requires the suit premises.

6. Mr. S. Prasad, the learned counsel for the first respondent, contends that as all the courts below except the Additional District Court found the need of the respondent for the suit premises for his personal occupation is bona fide, it is immaterial whether he utilizes it as it is or repairs or reconstructs the same to suit his requirements.

7. On the above contentions the question that arises for our consideration is: whether the requirement of the suit premises by the appellant for personal use implies its use not only in the existing condition but also on making necessary repairs to or reconstruction of the same.

8. Before proceeding further it will be useful to notice the distinction between sub-s. (3) and (8) of S.11 of the Act. It is necessary to refer to them here:

"(3). A landlord may apply to the rent control court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him:

Provided that the rent control court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the rent control court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so.

Provided further that the rent co