K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

First revision petitioner is a partnership firm and others are its partners. The firm is doing business on commission basis in the sale and export of spices. Respondent herein is a company owning a double storied building in Jew Town, Mattancherry. They purchased the building in 1972. Revision petitioners were in occupation of the tenanted premises prior to that. A portion of the ground floor as well as the first floor of the building belongs to and is in the possession of the respondent company. Earlier R.C.P. 177/81 was preferred by the landlord for eviction of the revision petitioners which was later compromised. The claim for eviction was abandoned on the revision petitioners agreeing to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and on agreeing to surrender a part of the backyard of the building occupied by them in exchange for being given another portion of the backyard by the landlord. A fresh rent deed was executed between the parties on 22.12.1982 incorporating the terms of the fresh tenancy. Respondent-landlord has now preferred the present Rent Control Petition under Ss.11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition on both the grounds. Matter was taken up by the landlord before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred by the tenants.

2. When the matter came up for hearing counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the terms of lease deed AT Counsel submitted term of the lease is liable to be extended every three years at the option of the tenant and such option has been exercised by the tenant continuously till date and even thereafter during the pendency of the present proceedings. In order to establish this contention reference was made by the counsel to the decision of the Apex Court in Laxmidas Babudas, Darbar v. Rudravea,. 2001 (3) KLT 324. Counsel further submitted the Appellate Authority failed to consider the spirit and import of S.11(9) of the Act. Further it was contended that the need alleged in the Rent Control Petition is not at all for their own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of their defendants or for the requirement of additional accommodation for their personal use. Consequently, Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not have ordered eviction on the grounds under Ss.11 (3) or 11 (8) of the Act. We have perused the terms of Ext. A7 agreement. We may extract the clause on which reliance was placed by the counsel for the tenant as stated herein.

"That the tenant agrees the new tenancy agreement aforesaid shall be for a period of three years from 1.1.1983. Further it is agreed in case the Tenant wants to continue, they can continue on condition that they give an increase of 10% in the monthly rental amount every three years."

Counsel submitted in view of the above mentioned clause tenant could continue in occupation of the tenanted premises indefinitely provided they give an increase of 10% in the monthly rental amount every three years. Counsel submitted the landlord cannot seek eviction on any of the grounds in the-Rent Control Act in view of the above mentioned clause.

3. Rent Control Act is a self contained statute and the rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant are to be governed by its provisions. As held by the Apex Court in Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan, AIR 1978 SC 22 the provisions in the Rent Control Act would prevail over the general law of the landlord and tenant. Rent Control Act is a piece of social legislation and is meant mainly to protect the tenants from frivolous eviction. At the same time,-in order to do justice to the landlords certain statutory provisions have been made by the legislature which give relief to the landlord as well. The Apex Court in Murlidhar Agarwal v. State of UP, AIR