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 o