Pius. C. Kuriakose, J.

A tenant against whom order of eviction under Sub Section 8 of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 has been concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority is the revision petitioner. The petition schedule building is portion of a larger building and admittedly the first respondent/landlord is in occupation of certain portions of the said building and is conducting hotel business in those portions by the name "Lunch House".

2. The need projected by the landlord was that there is no sufficient convenience in the rooms under his occupation, for him to conduct the lunch house business and to accommodate the customers who are coming to take lunch. According to the landlord, there is necessity to expand the hotel business and for that, sufficient convenience is to be arranged for storage of food materials, fire wood etc. etc. The landlord has simultaneously instituted petitions for eviction on the same ground against the tenants in occupation of the other portions of the larger building.

3. The rent control court on an evaluation of the evidence which came on record became inclined to pass order of eviction under Sub Section 8 of Section 11 only against the revision petitioner who was the 7th respondent in the rent control petition and also against the 8th respondent. The eviction was declined against the other respondents. Eviction was declined against respondents 1 to 6 mainly on the reason that they are entitled to the protection of the first proviso to Sub Section 10 of Section 11 and to a certain extent due to the reason that the landlord had not succeeded in establishing that he requires the portions occupied by those tenants also, for accomplishing the avowed need for additional accommodation.

4. In this revision petition we are concerned with the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner who was the 7th respondent. We have heard the submissions of Sri. C.P. Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the first respondent/landlord. Sri.Nias would address us extensively. He submitted that the revision petitioner is conducting a ration shop on the strength of the licence issued to him by the Civil Supplies Department. This ration depot caters to the needs of as many as 530 ration card holders. Drawing our attention to clause (i) of Sub Section 11 of Section 11 of the Rent Control Act and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, Sri.Nias would forcefully submit that the petitioner is a tenant who falls within clause (i) of Sub Section 11 of Section 11 and hence the order of eviction passed against him is not sustainable. He would further submit that the need projected in the rent control petition was that the landlord requires the building portions occupied by all the tenants who were respondents in the rent control petition for expansion of his lunch house business. The authorities having found that the need to the extent, the same pertains to the other tenants is not a genuine one, is not justified in finding that the need is genuine when it comes to the plea for eviction against the revision petitioner. Sri. Nias would assail the findings of the authorities on the other grounds raised in the revision petition also.

5. Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the only notification which has been promulgated by the Government in the context of clause (i) of sub-section (11) of section 11 is SRO. 551/1977. That notification is to the effect only that the employments in which the Military Estates Officers and the Personnel paid from the Defence Services Estimates of the Government of India employed within the limits of the Corporation of Cochin shall be essential services for the purpose of Section 11(11). Regarding the other submissions of Sri. Mohammed Nias, Sri. Bha