The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the grounds for eviction under S.11(2)(b), S.11(3), and S.11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the landlord's right to support the order for eviction by disputing the correctness of findings on another ground for eviction.

1. Leave to appeal granted in all the petitions.

2. The suit property is a building situated within the jurisdiction of rent control court of Kozhikode. The plan of the property shows that it is a shop with openings on two sides. Though the property is one, however, it has been numbered by the local authority by assigning two door Nos., i.e., door No. 6/481 and 6/482. The small corner of the shop situated between the openings on the two sides has been assigned No. 6/482 while the remaining entire shop is assigned door No. 6/481. The property was owned by Kunhilakshmi alias Leelamma and Others and held on tenancy by Nalakath Sainuddin, the appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-, the tenancy being a single tenancy for door Nos. 6/481 and 6/482. The tenancy had commenced in the year 1969. Sometime in the year 1972, door No.6/482 was sublet by the appellant to the respondent Koorikadan Sulaiman on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. On 12.9.1988, the respondent purchased the entire property (ie., including both the doors) from the then owners of the property. The respondent then served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to surrender possession over the property in his possession. The notice was followed by an application filed by the respondent in the rent control court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on three grounds, viz., (i) that the appellant was in arrears of rent, (ii) that the building was bona fide needed for his own occupation, and (iii) that the respondent occupying only a part of the building required additional accommodation in occupation of the appellant for the landlord's personal use, the grounds as contemplated respectively by S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter, 'the Act', for short).

3. The rent control court negated the availability of grounds under sub-ss. (3) and (8) of S.11 of the Act but ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent under S.11(2)(b). Both the parties preferred their respective appeals before the rent control appellate authority. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed in part. The eviction of the appellant was ordered under S.11(8) of the Act in addition to S.11(2)(b), as directed by the rent control court. The dismissal of claim for eviction under S.11(3) by the rent control court was upheld by the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, the tenant preferred a revision under S.20 of the Act before the High Court. The landlord did not prefer any revision against the order of the appellate authority. In the revision preferred by the tenant, the High Court has, by its impugned judgment, upheld the order of eviction under S.11(2)(b). As to availability of ground of eviction under S.11(8), the High Court has held that the same was not available to the landlord. However, in the opinion of the High Court, the order for eviction could be sustained under S.11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court modified the judgment of the appellate authority by holding that in addition to the ground under S.11(2)(b), the order for eviction would be sustainable under S.11(3) of the Act. The tenant has filed two petitions seeking leave to file appeals by special leave. The landlord has also filed two petitions seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and praying for eviction of the tenant under S.11(8) of the Act also. However, in the narration of facts herein we have referred to the status of the parties as they are arrayed in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1599-1600/2001 filed by tenant.

4. In so far as the order for eviction under S.11(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the tenant has, as contemplated by S.11(2)(c) of the Act, deposited the amount of arrears of r