The court emphasized the importance of bona fide need for eviction under S.11(3) and interpreted the conditions for protection under the provisos of the Act.

1. This revision at the instance of the Respondents-tenants is against the concurrent decision of the courts below, for their eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. Two shop rooms in a building belonging to the petitioner-landlord were let to the respondents-tenants for conducting a grocery shop. The landlord is in possession of two rooms and a side room in the same building. Eviction was ordered by the courts below on the finding that the landlord bona fide requires the two rooms in question for the purpose of his residence as well as to carry on a trade for his living.

3. Even though the finding of bona fide need for own occupation of the landlord is challenged in this revision, nothing is brought out before me to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. The courts below have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord that he is presently residing in a house belonging to his step mother, he has no right of residence in the said house, there are other persons residing with the step mother and there is no sufficient space for the occupation of the landlord and his family. On the evidence in the case, the finding of bona fide need of the landlord for the occupation of himself and his family for the purpose of residence.and to conduct a trade to earn a living is perfectly justified and cannot be interfered with in this revision.

4. Learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners contended that sine? part of the building is in the possession of the landlord himself, it is not open to him to apply for eviction under sub-section (3) of S.11 and the only ground on which he can seek eviction is under sub-section (8) of S.11 of the Act. S.11 of the Act enacts that a tenant shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and enumerates the grounds on which the landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for the eviction of the tenant. Under the general law of landlord and tenant, a landlord is entitled to evict the tenant on the determination of the lease. S.111 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for the various modes under which a lease of immovable property determines. Under clause (q) of S.108 of the T. P. Act the lessee is bound to put the lessor in possession of the property on the determination of the lease. The preamble to the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 states the purpose of the Act as to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State. It is in the context of acute scarcity of residential and non-residential accommodation that the Act was passed restricting the right of the landlord to evict the tenants. Under sub-section (3) of S.11 of the Act, the landlord in bona fide need of the building for the occupation of himself or of any member of his family dependent on him may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The expression 'building' as defined in the Act includes part of a building. Sub-sec. (8) of S.11 enacts another ground, as per which a landlord in occupation of a part of the building may apply for the eviction of the tenant in occupation of the whole or any portion of the remaining part if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. Sub-sections (3) and (8) of S.11 are not mutually exclusive. If both the grounds are available to the landlord it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or on both. The mere fact that there is a specific provision applicable to a situation where the landlord is in occupation of a part of a building and the remaining portion or part thereof is in the possession of a tenant, does not preclude the landlord from seeking eviction under sub-section (3) of S.11 of the Act, It is not a sound principle of statutory construction to place more restrictions on the rights of parties than