Chitambaresh, J.

1. Is 'functional integrity' a relevant factor apart from 'structural oneness' to decide whether the premises is a part of the building in the context of section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short) ? We have heard Mr.Tom K Thomas, Advocate on behalf of the landlords and Mr.S.P.Chaly, Advocate on behalf of the tenant in extenso on this interesting question. An attempt to settle the dispute amongst the parties harmoniously by reference to the Mediation Centre has proved to be of no avail.

2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent, subsequent acquisition of building and additional accommodation. The arrears of rent were paid during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore the claim under section 11(2) of the Act does not survive. The claim for eviction on the ground of subsequent acquisition under section 11(4)(iii) of the Act has been concurrently turned down by the courts below and is not assailed. But the finding on the ground of additional accommodation under section 11(8) of the Act by the courts below is divergent. The Rent Control Court upheld the claim of the landlords which has been reversed in appeal by the tenant by the appellate court. This is challenged by the landlords in this rent control revision under section 20 of the Act reiterating their claim for eviction of the tenant.

3. The commercial building houses two shop rooms bearing Door Nos.40/2532 and 40/2533 in the busy Broadway Market at Ernakulam. These shop rooms were in the respective possession of the fourth petitioner and the respondent as tenants under the erstwhile landlord. The erstwhile landlord had leased out the shop room to the fourth petitioner as per Ext.A1 lease deed dated 8.8.1997. Subsequently the whole building was taken assignment of in the name of the four petitioners by Ext.A2 sale deed dated 23.6.2003. The schedule of the document shows that the total extent of the property is only 2 cents in Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam Village.

4. The erstwhile landlord issued Ext.A5 letter to the respondent intimating him about the assignment and requesting him to attorn to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners as landlords issued Ext.A6 notice seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises as tenant. It was specifically stated in the notice that the premises in the possession of the tenant was part of the building. The tenant though issued Ext.A7 notice in reply did not dispute the fact that the premises was part of the building. The failure to vacate the premises by the tenant led to the filing of the rent control petition by the landlords on the grounds aforesaid.

5. The landlords are conducting business in electronic goods under the name and style 'WHITE PLANET' in the shop room in their occupation. The tenant is conducting business in gold under the name and style 'ARAMMAL JEWELLERY' in the other shop room. The specific need alleged is that the landlords require the premises for expanding their business in electronic goods of various types. The principal objection of the tenant is that the premises in their occupation is not part of the building to invoke section 11(8) of the Act. The contention of the tenant is that the landlords cannot seek additional accommodation and could at best lay a claim only under section 11(3) of the Act.

6. The recitals in Ext.A2 sale deed itself reveals that the property which is a two storied building with appurtenant land had been dealt with as a compact block in earlier transactions. The fact that the shop rooms have a common roof has been noticed in Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner. The tenant as RW.1 has conceded in evidence that the shop rooms have a common roof. The first floor of both the shop rooms is utilised as a single unit by a firm 'Colombo Umbrella House' in which some of the landlords are also partners. Both the shop rooms have a common foundation as per the ind