The interpretation of the expression 'personal use' in sub-s. (8) of S.11 of the Kerala Act and the requirement of comparative hardship to the tenant are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

1. This appeal is from the judgment and orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1778 of 1991-C dated July 28,1994. The polemic centres round interpretation of the expression'personal use' in sub-s. (8) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the Kerala Act').

2. A brief narration of the facts giving rise to this appeal is necessary to appreciate the question involved in this case. 'The question of bona fide requirement of additional accommodation under S.11(8) of the Act alone is canvassed before us so we are confining the facts relevant to that ground. The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of a shop room which is a portion of the main building of Irinjalakkuda Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises'). In the main building the appellant was running the business of hotel-cum-bar. On the plea that he had made all preparation for starting a jewellery shop and a textile shop and bona fide requires additional accommodation for the proposed business, he filed R.C.P. No.31 of 1983 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises. The ground of bonafide requirement of the appellant for additional accommodation was opposed by the respondent. He averred that he was running a provision shop in the premises which was his sole source of income for his livelihood and the appellant was having other vacant accommodation which he let out to others. The learned Rent Controller recorded the finding that the appellant was not in need of additional accommodation. It was also found that if the respondent was evicted from the premises he would be put to more hardship than the benefit that would be fetched to the appellant. In that view of the matter, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 7th June, 1986. The landlord unsuccessfully assailed the said order before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 39 of 1990. Both, on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord and on the question of comparative hardship, the Appellate Authority held against the appellant/ landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed C.R.P.No.1778 of 1991-C before the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Revision on 28th July 1994. It is against that order of the High Court the appellants is in appeal by special leave.

3. Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, invited our attention to sub-s. (8) of S.11 of the Kerala Act and argued that it enabled a landlord to claim additional accommodation for his bona fide personal use and that the High Court committed grave error of law in confining the personal use of the landlord to expansion of the existing business only.

4. Mr. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that for the purposes of starting any business the provisions of S.11(3) will have to be invoked and that S.11(8) applies only when the landlord's need for additional accommodation relates to expansion of his existing business; if S.11(8) is interpreted as contended by the appellants, then rigour of S.11(3) will be diluted and it will be circumvented by having recourse to sub-s. (8).

5. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it will be appropriate to refer to sub-s. (8) of S.11 of the Kerala Act which reads as under:

"11(8). A landlord who is occupying only apart of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use".

6. A plain reading of the provision, extracted above, shows that the requirements of sub-s. (8) under which the claim is made by the landlord are: (i) a landlord is occupying only a part of the building; (ii) the tenant is occupying the whole or any portion of the remainin