The court clarified the application of S.11(17) of the Act and emphasized that the protection under this section is available only for eviction sought under specific subsections, not including S.11(7).

1. This is a petition under S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code to revise an order of the District Judge, Trivandrum passed by him under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This case was filed as an Original Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution; but in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ouseph Vareed v. Mary (1968 KLT. 583) that the District Court exercising jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act is a civil court and its decision is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioner moved by CMP. No 4752 for the Original Petition being converted as a Civil Revision Petition; and it has been allowed.

2. The petitioner is the Young Women's Christian Association, Trivandrum; and respondents 1 and 2 are the tenants of a building, which belongs to the petitioner. The tenancy came into existence long before 1st April 1940. The petitioner filed an application under S.11(7) of the Act before the third respondent, the Principal Munsiff, Trivandrum, who is the Rent Controller under the Act, for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the landlord required the building for the purpose of expanding its activities by providing accommodation for tourists after reconstructing and re-modelling the building. The application was resisted by the tenants on several grounds. It appears from Ex. P-1, the order of the third respondent that only three grounds were pressed before him

(i) The petitioner is not a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution falling under S.11 (7) of the Act;

(ii) The need stated for eviction is not one for the purposes of the institution; and (iii) The need alleged is a pretext for eviction and not bona fide.

The third respondent decided all these points in favour of the petitioner and ordered eviction. Dealing with the third ground, the Rent Controller stated as follows:

"The petitioner has stated in the petition itself that the building is needed for the purpose of the YWCA., and for accommodating the tourists they want to remodel and to reconstruct the building. It has come out in evidence from the testimony of CPWs.1 and 2 that the petitioner YWCA. was asking the tenants to vacate the building from July 1960 onwards and that the tenants i. e. counter-petitioners in the two BRC. cases were asking for time to vacate for finding out a suitable accommodation. It has also come out that the southern-most room in the plaint building which was occupied by the Olivet Textiles was vacated by its tenant, that the said room is remaining closed and the petitioner as pw.1 has stated that it is kept closed so that the building may be reconstructed after the counter-petitioners vacated the building. The petitioner has obtained the plan and license for reconstruction of the building and has stated that the YWCA. has 40,000 rupees held in deposit in bank for the reconstruction of the building. There is nothing to discredit the testimony of pw.1. There is also nothing brought out to show that the case of the petitioner that the building is required

for its purpose to accommodate Tourists is a false one and is a pretext for eviction."

The tenants filed an appeal from the decision of the Rent Controller before the fourth respondent, the Principal Sub-Judge, Trivandrum, who allowed the appeal by his order Ex. P-2. The question whether the need stated by the landlord for eviction was bona fide was not rightly raised before him, in the light of the above finding of the Rent Controller on that point. Ex. P2 shows that in addition to grounds (i) and (ii) taken before the Rent Controller, an additional ground was raised before the Subordinate Judge. The new ground was that the tenants were entitled to protection under S.11(17) of the Act. The Subordinate Judge concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller on the first ground; but they differed on the second ground. The Subordinate Judge held that the need