The bona fide need of the landlord, whether under S.11(3) or S.11(7), is the key consideration for granting an order of eviction.

1. After a variegated course in litigation a religious institution (Juma Masjid Mahal Sangham) succeeded in getting an order of eviction of a tenant from the building which belongs to the said institution. The impugned order is the one passed by the District Court in exercise of powers under S.20 of the Kerala Building; (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'The Act'). The challenge now is under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Waikom Town Juma Masjid Mahal Sangham" (hereinafter referred to as the society) filed an application before the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction on the ground that the building is bona fide needed by the sangham for its own purposes. The aforesaid ground was further expatiated in the averments stating that the society is conducting a school for teaching Arabic language (Madrassa) in a small building which is too insufficient to accommodate all the students and that the student strength in the Madrassa is on the increase and that the society has. therefore, resolved to make the present building available to house the Madrassa therein. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the society bona fide needs the building. But since the tenant depends mainly upon the income derived from the business conducted in this building for his livelihood and since there is no other suitable building available in the locality to shift his business, both the said courts refused to grant the relief prayed for by the society. The District Court, in revision, expressed the opinion that the first two courts did not consider the applicability of the ground envisaged in S.11(7) of the Act. Hence the District Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh after considering the scope of the applicability of the aforesaid sub-section to the facts of the case. The Appellate Authority thus found that the society is entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(7) and hence passed an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. That order was, in turn, challenged by the tenant, in revision before the District Court without success. On the death of the said tenant, his legal representatives have now filed the present original petition.

3. Learned counsel contended that the society is not entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(7) since the application for eviction did not mention the aforesaid sub-section. It is true that the landlord-society has quoted in the application only sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of S.11 of the Act. But the averments in the application are clear in that, what the landlord society wanted was an order of eviction of the tenant as the society needed the building very badly to house the Madrassa therein. It was contended by the learned counsel that when a landlord has sought for an order of eviction on a ground which affords certain protections to a tenant, it is not open to the court to grant him an order on a different ground which does not afford the tenant such protections. According to the counsel, the ground mentioned in sub-section (3) is entirely different from the ground under sub-section (7)

4. Can it be said that the ground envisaged in S.11(7) is entirely different from the ground mentioned in S.11(3)? The main thrust in both the sub-sections is the need of the landlord. Though the need of the landlord envisaged in S.11(3) is specifically qualified to he his bona fide need, it cannot be contended that the landlord is not obliged to satisfy the court of its bona fides if the need urged is the one contemplated in S.11(7). Non-mention of the word "bona fide" in S.11(7) is of no consequence, since sub-section (10) of S.11 controls the former sub-section and the Rent Control Court is duty bound to reject an application if it is not satisfied about the bona fides of the claim. A Division Bench of this court pointedly stressed on the mandatory obl