Kemal Pasha, J.

1. In a case where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 is bona fide, is it the requirement of law, in terms of that Statute, that the bona fides of the claim of the landlord has again to be considered in view of Section 11(10) of that Act?

2. The landlord, a lady, pleaded that her husband, who was about to return from the gulf, is dependent on her for occupation of the scheduled building, for him to conduct a vegetable shop. The Rent Control Court allowed the R.C.P on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant who is the petitioner herein unsuccessfully challenged that order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority; which, after scanning the evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal holding that the need urged by the landlady is bona fide, and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

3. The main point which the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to canvass before us was that a Division Bench of this Court in Smitha v. Krishnan reported in 2011 (4) KLT 697 doubted the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Aboobacker v. Sahithya P.S. Sangham Ltd.(2004 (2) KLT 947) and referred the issue for consideration by the Full Bench under Section 4 of the Kerala High Court Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to persuade us to keep our hands away from this matter till the Full Bench decides the said matter. We are aware that in Smitha (supra) the Division Bench has held that Aboobacker(supra) shall continue to hold the field subject to the decision of the Full Bench.

4. Section 11(3) of the Act merely enables a landlord to apply for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of the members of his family who is dependent on him for such an accommodation. On going through Section 11(3) of the Act it is clear that it is a provision that enables the landlord to put forward such a claim by filing an application before the Rent Control Court. At the same time, S.11(10) clearly casts an obligation on the part of the Rent Control Court to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if it is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide.

5. It is true that S.11(10) of the Act deals with sub-sections (3), (4), (7) and (8) of the Act. It is clearly stated that the Rent Control Court shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if it is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under sub-sections (3), (4), (7) or sub-section (8) is bona fide. Therefore, it is evident that the legislature has made it clear that satisfaction regarding the bona fides should be confined to the claim of the landlord under sub-sections (3), (4), (7) and (8) of the Act.

6. A learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with S.11(4)(i) and S.11(10) in Krishnan v. Vijayaraghavan (1977 KLT 1013) held that if S.11(10) is to be applied to clauses (i),(ii), (iii) or (v) of S.11(4), then it will lead to very unhappy results. It was further held therein that what the legislature intended by enacting S.11(10) including the entire of S.11(4) can only be to include S.11(4)(iv) and not the other clauses of S.11(4).

We are in full agreement with the said proposition.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Haridas v. Mercantile Employees' Association (1975 KLT 437) held that the Rent Control Court is under a mandatory obligation as per Section 11(10), to investigate into the bona fides of the claim put forward by the landlord under sub-section (7).

8. A careful scrutiny and comparative analysis of the terms of Section 11(2) and the terms of sub-sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Section 11 of the Act w