The main legal point established is the interpretation of the landlord's bonafide need for own occupation after re-construction, the meaning of 'locality' in the 2nd proviso to S.11(3), and the requirement for the tenant to prove dependence on the income derived from the business carried on in the building.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the tenant who was the respondent in R.C.P. No.1 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Attingal. The landlord sought recovery of the building on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation after re-construction The Rent Control Court found against the plea under S.11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On appeal by the landlord in R.C.A No. 10 of 1983 the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 14-6-1984 allowed eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. The tenant took up the matter in revision before the District Court, Trivandrum in R.C.R.P. No. 32 of 1984. The learned District Judge by order dated 8-2-1985 confirmed the decision of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision petition. Hence this Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the tenant.

2. On an earlier occasion the landlord sought to recover the petition schedule building by filing O. P. (B. R. C.) No. 10 of 1976 before the Rent Control Court, Attingal. The ground alleged therein was bonafide need for own occupation of the building occupied by the tenant. That petition happened to be dismissed by the Rent Control Court on 15-7-1976. The appeal therefrom namely B. R. C. Appeal No. 11 of 1975 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by judgment dated 12-2-1977. On account of the dismissal of the earlier application under S.11(3) of the Act, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition filed by the landlord is one hit by S.15 of the Act. T am not in a position to agree with the learned counsel on this aspect of the case. As seen from Ext. B3 copy of the judgment in B.R.C. Appeal No. 11 of 1975 the earlier application filed by the landlord was on the ground of own occupation of the building now in existence in the property. The building which is the subject-matter in that proceedings is a shop room. The landlord now does not want to occupy the existing building but she wants to have it demolished and a residential building put up for her residence. This need, according to me, is an entirely different one than the one pleaded in O. P. (B. R. C.) No. 10 of 1976. In this view this petition cannot be considered as one wherein the landlord has put forth a claim which is substantially the same as the one urged earlier. Therefore this petition is not one falling within the mischief of S.15 of the Act.

3. The petition schedule building as stated earlier is a shop room in a row of rooms in a building. There are, in all, three shop rooms. Two rooms have already been got vacated from its tenants. Those two rooms are lying vacant. The third room which is in the occupation of the present petitioner is sought to be recovered so that the entire building can be demolished and a new residential house can be constructed. Ext. A7 certificate and Ext. A4 site plan show that the landlord has obtained necessary licence and plan for putting up the residential building. From Ext. A4 it is seen that the proposed residential building is located covering a portion of the site in which the present building stands. In order to facilitate the said construction it is essential to have the existing building demolished. The landlord has categorically stated that she has got only the 7 cents of property in which the petition schedule building is situated for her to construct a residential building.

4. The landlord and her mother are now staying with her paternal uncle, father's brother. Her father is now no more. She has her own family. She wants to put up a building of her own for staying with her family. This need that is put forth by the landlord is, according to the learned counsel appearing for the tenant-revision petitioner only a pretext to get the building vacated. I am not in a position to subscribe to the said argument advanced by the counsel. Sukumaran J. in Secretary, Thevara Co-ope