Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration is whether eviction sought for by the landlord of the tenanted premises so as to use it as a pathway for the proposed multi-storeyed building would come within the scope of Sec. 11(3) or 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. Landlords maintained the stand that their requirement would come within the scope of Sec. 11(3) of the Act. Tenant would contend that it would fall under Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the Act, consequently he could get the benefit of re-entry and stake claim for an equal area after reconstruction.

2. Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority took the view that the claim of the landlords would fall under Sec. 11(3) and not under Sec. 11(4)(iv). Appellate Authority alternatively considered the plea as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the claim would fall under sec. 11(4)(iv) and gave option to the tenant to accept the premises offered by the landlords.

3. Landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute. Landlords are owners of plot of land in a commercially important area on the side of Jews Street in the Cochin City. Petition-scheduled building is situated on the southern side of the plot abutting the road. Landlords wanted to construct a multi-storeyed commercial building in the plot. Proposal was to construct a line of shop rooms facing east. Between the compound wall on the east and the proposed; building, landlords were able to leave a three metre wide pathway as access to the newly constructed building. Further it was pointed out on the eastern side of the plot belonging to the landlords there was another building referred to as Balaji building. The owner of the said plot had constructed building in his property leaving a three metre wide pathway on the west of his building. Landlords thought that if they demolish the compound wall on the eastern side of their property, the pathway left by them on the east to their building and the pathway left by the owners of Balaji building on the west of their building could be used together for the common advantage of both the petitioner and landlords.

4. Petition schedule building is situated abutting the Jews Street. Landlords have constructed a building and the same is getting complete. According to the landlords building on the east has space on its western side and the same is being used as access to the new building. If the tenanted premises is demolished it can be used as pathway. Above is the need projected by the landlord. Both the courts below have concurrently found the need is bonafide. We find no reason to take a different view sitting in revisional jurisdiction.

5. The only question to be considered now is whether the above need projected by the landlord would fall under sec. 11(3) or 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that unless the landlord needs the building bonafide for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of the family dependent on him, Sec. 11(3) would not apply. Counsel submitted that landlord proposes to demolish the tenanted premises not to construct a new building in its place but to use the space occupied by the tenanted premises as an access to the new building and hence the same would fall only under of Sec. 11(4)(iv) of the Act in the event of which tenant can claim statutory right of re-entry.

6. Counsel appearing for the landlord on the other hand contended that the landlord has no intention to construct any building in the tenanted premises after demolition. The space occupied by the tenanted building has to be kept as a pathway. Counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that only if there is any reconstruction in the tenanted premises tenant can claim re-entry under sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act.

7. Counsel on either side referred to certain decisions of this court though not directly answering the question posed. Before we examine the rival contentions we shall examine the scope of the definit