Harilal, J.

1. The landlord, who is confronting with a common order dismissing the Rent Control Petitions, filed under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”), has come up before this Court, in Revision, challenging the divergent findings under Section 11(8) of the Act.

2. The Rent Control Court found that the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act, as the need for additional accommodation claimed by the landlord is a bona fide one and the hardship, which may be caused to the tenant, if an order of eviction is passed, will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord. But, in the appeals, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the bona fides found by the Rent Control Court and further found that the landlord has vacant rooms, in three other buildings of his own, in his possession and thereby the need projected is not a bona fide one and the hardship that may be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantage to the landlord. Thus, the findings of the courts below under Section 11(8) of the Act stand in divergence.

3. According to the petitioner/landlord, he is a Government contractor and he bona fide needs the petition schedule shop room, for using as an office of his firm, namely M/s.Prabeesh Constructions. He wants the petition schedule shop room, for the purpose of accommodating his staff, installing computers and for providing chambers for himself and the staff. At present, it is functioning in a room situated in the petition schedule building. He is not in possession of any other vacant room, which is suitable for the proposed purpose, in the very same building. But, the tenant has another room, in his possession, in the building owned by one Abdul Rehiman and the same is sufficient for his business.

4. On the aforesaid contentions, the trial court went to trial and after trial, allowed the petitions partly, on the findings referred above. In the appeals, the appellate court reversed the said findings on the reason that the landlord has three other buildings in his possession; i.e. one is a new block constructed in the same premises, another is a building complex by name “Syamala Memorial Building” and the third one is a multi-storied building, which is being constructed at a place 200 Meters away from the petition schedule buildings. In view of the ownership and possession of the aforesaid building, the appellate court has arrived at a finding that he can accommodate his office in any of the other buildings referred above, without getting an order of eviction against the tenant.

5. As regards the comparative hardship, the court below found that the Rent Control Court went wrong by discarding Ext.B3 Building Tax Assessment Register of the local authority and further found that it has come out in evidence that the landlord has vacant rooms in his possession in other building; but the tenant has no other building in his possession. So the comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(10) stands in favour of the tenant.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Going by the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, we find that the Appellate Authority has gone beyond the limit of statutory mandate under Section 11(8) of the Act. It has come out in evidence and stands admitted by both the courts below that at present the landlord is occupying a part of the building in which the petition schedule building is situated. The questions to be considered are; (1) What is the scope and extent of enquiry under Section 11(8) of the Act? (2) Where the landlord is occupying a part of the building in which the petition schedule building is situated, whether the availability of other vacant room, in his possession, in any other building would negative his claim under Section 11(8) of the Act.

8. On a comparative analysis of the different