The interpretation of S.11(3) of the Act allows a landlord to recover a building for his own occupation, even if it involves demolition and reconstruction.

1. The revision petitions are directed against the decision of the District Judge of Kozhikode passed in revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965.)

M. K. Kumaran, who is the common respondent in both the revision petitions, filed separate petitions for evicting the revision petitioners under S.11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. The proceedings were continued under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (2 of 1965) in view of S.34 thereof. S.11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Act, 1959 correspond to S.11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Act 2 of 1965 and the provisions are identical. The arguments of the counsel were therefore based on the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act. ' '

2. The respondent is the owner of the building in T. S, No. 14 in Ward No. 18 in Calicut City. The revision petitioner in CRP.524 of 1968 is the tenant in occupation of the ground floor of the building while the revision petitioner in CRP. 526 of 1968 is the tenant occupying the first floor of the building. The grounds on which the respondent sought to evict the revision petitioners are that they committed default in the payment of rent and that he 'bona fide' needs the building for his own occupation.

Ex. A-4 is the sketch produced by the respondent along with the petitions. Ex. A-17 is the survey plan showing the lie of T.S. No. 14 and the adjacent survey numbers. Ex. C-1 is the plan and Ex. C-2 is the report filed by the commissioner appointed in the proceedings. Common evidence was adduced in the petitions and they were disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction of the revision petitioners only on the ground that they have not paid the arrears of rent in respect of the building in pursuance to the demand made by the respondent Though the Rent Control Court found that the need mentioned by the respondent for eviction is bona fide it took the view that such a need is not a ground for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority who is the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode also held that the need stated by the respondent in the petitions is bona fide but differing from the Rent Control Court took the view that the particular need is covered by S.11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority remanded the petitions to the Rent Control Court to decide whether the revision petitioners are entitled to the protection granted by the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The order of the appellate authority was confirmed in revision by the District Judge of Kozhikode under S.20 of the Act. The civil revision petitions have been preferred under S.115, CPC. challenging the correctness of the decision of the District Judge.

4. Before considering the grounds raised on behalf of the revision petitioners it is necessary to state the need mentioned by the respondent in the petitions for eviction. The respondent is conducting the Komalavilas Restaurant in this building in "T. S. No. 18. It is admitted that the respondent is not the owner of the said building but only a tenant in occupation. The case of the respondent is that he proposes to construct a lodging house in the property in T. S. Nos. 15 and 16 which lie to the north of T. S No. 18 and north-east of T. S. No. 14. The Madras-Calicut Trunk Road lies to the west of T. S. No. 14. Since there is no approach road to T. S. Nos. 15 and 16 from the Madras Calicut Trunk Road the respondent prays for the recovery of the building leased to the revision petitioners to provide a direct approach from the Trunk Road to T. S. Nos. 15 and 16 and to the backyard of the Komalavilas Restaurant for the convenience of the respondent and his customers. In Ex. C2 the commissioner stated thus:

"The Municipal lane T. S. No. 20 on the south of the premises marked in the plan (Ex. Cl) which is leading to a private lane behind the Komalavilas building is too