The judgment established the applicability of S.11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in the context of a landlord's petition for eviction, and clarified the circumstances under which both provisions can be invoked together.

1. The tenant in a rent control petition for eviction of a building is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed the petition for eviction under S.11 (3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Rent Control Court held that the petitioner is not entitled for eviction under both these sub-sections, and accordingly dismissed the petition. However the Appellate Authority allowed eviction under both these sub-sections. The Revisional Court allowed eviction only under S.11(3) of the Act. The tenant is challenging the order of the revisional court in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The petition schedule building is one part of a building consisting of three residential units. The landlord was residing in his official quarters as Manager of Spencer & Company Ltd. When he was transferred to Coimbatore, he was directed to vacate the official quarters. Since the petitioner could not take his family to Coimbatore, and in view of the difficulties stated in the petition, he wanted the eviction of the tenants in the entire building consist ing of three separate portions. The tenant contended that there are no grounds for evicting him. The other two portions of this building will be sufficient for the landlord. As stated above, the District Court has allowed eviction under S.11(3) of the Act.

3. Ext.C-1(a) is a rough plan of the building showing the three parts. The petition schedule building, the present No. of which is 5/946, is the easternmost portion of the building. The general description of that portion as well as the description of the other two portions of the building are given by the Commissioner in Ext. C-1 report. At present the landlord is in possession of the two remaining portions of this building, since the tenants therein vacated the premises and handed over possession to the landlord, at his request. At the time of filing of the rent control petition, the landlord was temporarily continuing to occupy his official quarters out of grace shown by the company, even though he was transferred from that station. One of the main contentions of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the landlord has subsequent to the filing of the petition obtained possession of portion of the same building and therefore the petition for eviction is really under S.11 (8) namely for additional accommodation and not under S.11(3). In case such a proper petition was filed, the tenant could have sought for reliefs under the first proviso to S.11(10) of the Act under which the eviction petition is liable to be rejected if the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting the relief will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. As it is, the tenant was unable to put forward such a contention since the relief is granted under S.11(3) of the Act. Though S.11 (8) is also mentioned in the petition for eviction, the averments therein would go to show that the landlord was not in possession of any portion of the building at the time of filing of the petition. It is only stated therein that the landlord requires the building as a whole including the portion in the possession of the tenant herein.

4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the revisional court ought to have taken cognizance of the subsequent event, namely, the landlord got vacant possession of a portion of the building in question. For that proposition the learned counsel places reliance on the decision reported in P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders (A. I. R.1975 SC 1409). So also it was submitted that the condition existing at the time of disposal of the eviction petition is to be taken note of. Accordingly the submission is that the landlond ought to have amended the petition for eviction and confined his prayer to one for eviction under S.11 (8).

5. Learned counsel for the landlord pointed out that whether the eviction is sought for under S.11 (3) or 11 (8), the landlord has es