The Court clarified that the landlord's requirement for additional accommodation under S.11(8) does not require the landlord to occupy the building without any alteration or reconstruction. The Court also emphasized that S.11(3), 11(4) (iv) and 11(8) are independent provisions, and the nature of the requirement in each section is different.

1. The petitioners are the landlords. The building in the possession of the respondents belongs to them. They filed O.P. Nos. 119 of 1976 and 120 of 1976 seeking eviction of the respondents under S.11(2), (4) and (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short, the Act. Eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioners, who were in occupation of a part of the building, wanted the remaining portion of it in the possession of the respondents to be used after reconstruction. The Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence directed the respondents to put the petitioners in possession of the buildings under S.11(8) of the Act. Both the respondents filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, viz., the Principal Subordinate Judge, Palghat. The Appellate Authority confirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court and dismissed, the appeals. The respondents pursued the matter by filing two revisions as C.R.P. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1976 before the District Judge, Palghat. The revisional court by its order dated 18th February 1980 reversed the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority and held that the petitions were not maintainable under S.11(8) of the Act. The revisional Court remanded the petitions to the Rent Control Court with a direction to consider and decide whether the petitioners required the buildings under S.11(3) read with S.11(4) of the Act, and if so whether the tenants were entitled to the benefits of the 2nd proviso to S.11(3) and also to consider whether the petitions were filed for the bona fide need for occupation of the partnership firm mentioned in the petitions.

2. The Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court disposed of the rent control petitions, appeals and revisions by a common order. Hence I am disposing of these two revisions also by a common order.

3. It is necessary to note at the outset that the petitions were filed under S.11 (2) arrears of rent, 11 (4) re-construction as the building is in such a condition that it is necessary to demolish it, and 11(8) for additional accommodation. The petitioners as owners of the building wanted it for their occupation to run their business. They did not rest their claim as partners. It is necessary to bear in mind the above pleadings to test the correctness of the revisional order. I will extract below the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the order by Revisional Court. After referring to the various details disclosed in the pleadings and the evidence, the Rent Control Court makes the following obserations:

"Therefore the contention of the respondent in O. P. 119/76 that the petition scheduled building is not part of a big building of which the other portion is in the possession of the petitioners has no merit. It is admitted by the respondent in O. P. No. 120/76 that the petition scheduled buildings in O. P. 120 of 1976 and O. P. No. 119/76 are parts of the same building".

The Rent Control Court further makes the following observation in para 12 of its order:

"On a careful consideration of the entire evidence and circumstances in this case I am convinced that the petition scheduled building in O.P. Nos. 119 and 120 of 1976 are parts of one big building of which the remaining part is in the possession of the petitioners".

The Appellate Authority after considering the question has found as follows in para 12 of its judgment:

"In view of the exposition of law referred to above, it cannot be said that this is a case where the petitioners are not occupying part of a building of which the remaining part is in the occupation of the respondents".

The revisional Court in para 8 of its order has observed:

"The tenants contended that the scheduled premises and scheduled building was an independent unit which did not form part of the building which was previously in the occupation of the landlords. The two Courts below have come to a concurrent