The main legal point established in the judgment is that under S.11(8) of Act 2 of 1965, the landlord's claim for additional accommodation can include use by the landlord's family, and the burden of proof regarding greater hardship is on both the landlord and the tenant.

Paripoornan, J.

The tenant in R.C.P. No. 91 of 1987, Rent Control Court, Kannur is the petitioner in this revision. The sole respondent is the landlord. The petition schedule building is one of the three units of a bigger building. It was demised to the tenant on 10-1-1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The rent due fell in arrears. It was further alleged that the tenant was negligent in the use of the building and the building suffered substantial damage and its value was affected materially and permanently. Finally, the landlord contended that the available accommodation was insufficient for the comfortable residence of himself and his family and to meet the growing requirements, additional accommodation is necessary. He pressed into service S.11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. So, the petition for eviction was laid under S.11 (2),11(4) (iv) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. The. tenant contested the proceedings. It was contended that the entire arrears have been deposited in court. It was further contended that the building is not in a ruinous condition. Finally, the tenant stated that there is no need of additional accommodation for the landlord.

2. The Rent Controller held that the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction, on any of the grounds. In the appeal, before the appellate Authority, the landlord assailed the decision of the Rent Controller under S.11(4)(iv) and S.11(8) of the Act. The appellate Authority held that the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application and denied eviction, since none of the ingredients under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act was proved. But, holding that the landlord has proved the necessary ingredients to entitle him to an order of eviction under S.11(8) of the Act, the appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller under S.11(8) of the Act and directed the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the scheduled premises to the landlord within three months. The tenant has come up in revision.

3. We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner/tenant, M/s. Ramesh Chander and M Vijaya Kumar, as also counsel for the respondent/ landlord Mr. A P Chandrasekharan The sole controversy before us centered round the applicability of S.11(8) read with S.11 (10) of the Act, which are as follows:

"11(8). a landlord who is occupying only a part 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.

1I(10).--The Rent Control Court shall, if it is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under sub-sections (3), (4), (7), or sub-section (8) is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Rent Control Court, and if the Court is not so satisfied, it shall make an order rejecting the application:

Provided that, in the case of an application made under sub-section (8), the Rent Control Court shall reject the application if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord".

The short question is whether the landlord has proved that he requires additional accommodation for his personal use, and even so, is this a case where the hardship that will be caused to the tenant by granting the eviction, will outweigh the advantage to the landlord?

4. Admittedly, the landlord has five children, three sons and two daughters. The details of the members of the family were not furnished in the petition filed before the Rent Controller. But, it is admitted and also found by the appellate Authority, that the absence of mention of the details regarding the members of the family, has not caused "a surprise to the tenant. The tenant is a neigh hour of the landlord. He knows 'the full details of the occupants of the landlord's unit. He admitted that the la