The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the landlord's bona fide need, protection under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of S.11, and the use of the building by the tenant in a manner to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently.

1. In this revision under S.115 C.P.C., the tenant of a non-residential building challenges the validity of the order of eviction passed under S.11 (3) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965). The Rent Controller had found both the grounds against the landlord, but in appeal the findings of the Rent Controller were reversed on both the grounds and an order of eviction was granted. The judgment of the Appellate Authority was confirmed by the District Court in revision.

2. Various grounds have been taken in the memorandum of this revision petition. The main points on which arguments were advanced by Sri.C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, are the following:

(i) The landlord had no bona fide need to occupy the petition schedule building and the rooms, which were being used for non-residential purposes, and in particular in the context that she had another house of her own in her possession in the same Municipality, and the special reasons mentioned in support of the order of eviction by the Appellate Authority and the revisional court are without any factual basis.

(ii) Even assuming that the landlord had the bona fide need, the revision petitioner is protected by the second proviso to sub-section (3) of S.11 of the Act inasmuch as he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the trade carried on in the petition schedule building, and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for him to carry on his trade or business, and

(iii) The landlord did not succeed in establishing that the revision petitioner has been using the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently and, therefore, the order of eviction under S.11 (4) (ii) is not sustain able.

3. It is in evidence that the landlord respondent is a widow now in her seventies. She has expressed the desire to live separate from her child-ren with whom she was residing at the time of the filing of the petition in a house belonging jointly to them all, her interest in the house being one out of six equal shares. I have no hesitation in holding that the Rent Controller was wrong in taking the view that though she was only having a fractional interest in the property, and a preliminary decree for partition had already been passed, she had the right to continue to stay in the house. The ownership contemplated in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of S.11, in my opinion, is the absolute ownership, not a fractional interest which does not entitle such person to have exclusive occupation of the building or any particular portion thereof which could be conveniently used as a separate place of residence. If, in the final decree, the house was allotted to the respondent before the proceedings are over, different consideration may arise. However, I find no evidence on record as to whether the final decree has been passed, and, if so, to whom the house has been allotted. I, therefore, reject the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent has no bona fide need to have a separate house for her own occupation, and hold that the fact that she has a fractional right in the house, which originally belonged to her husband, is not a bar for seeking eviction of the petition schedule building (with rooms attached thereto) which alone belongs to her in absolute right.

4. The contention that in view of the provisions contained in subsection (1) of S.17 of the Act that no non-residential building shall be converted into residential building except with the permission in writing of the Accommodation Controller deserves to be considered more seriously than was ] done by the courts below. It is in evidence that this building, which admittedly is being used for non-residential purposes, was, prior to Ex. P-2 lease deed in favour of the revision petitioner, used as a workshop and lorry shed. That being so, it is o