Harilal, J.

These revision petitions are filed challenging the common judgment passed in RCA Nos.21/2016 and 25/2016 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. Hence, these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

2. Two rent control petitions were filed by the landlord under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') in respect of two shop rooms and these two rooms were occupied by the petitioners herein. Parties are referred to as the landlord and tenant, for convenience and better understanding.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Counsel appearing for both parties advanced arguments to fortify the rival contentions.

4. According to the landlord, he is running an Auditorium by name 'Shahanas Palace' in the property opposite to the petition scheduled building. The Auditorium and the petition scheduled property are on either side a public road. Since there was insufficiency of parking facility for the Auditorium, the petitioner purchased 19.75 cents of property lying on the opposite side of the said Auditorium and the petition scheduled shop rooms are situated in the said property. Since the said property was purchased for providing parking facility for the Auditorium, he wants to demolish the petition scheduled shop rooms after evicting the tenants from the petition scheduled shop rooms. Hence, they prayed for an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

5. The respondents contended that the requirement of providing sufficient parking space to the vehicles of the people who come to the Auditorium is not the need of the owner of the Auditorium and it is the need of the owners of the vehicles only. So also, the need for formation of a parking space, after demolishing the building in occupation of the tenants, cannot be deemed to be a 'bona fide need of the building for his own occupation' contemplated under Sec.11(3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the bona fide need must be one for occupation of the existing building only and the demolition of the same brings it out side the ambit of 'own occupation' contemplated under Sec.11(3) of the Act.

6. In view of the rival contentions, the first question to be considered is, whether the requirement of providing sufficient parking space for the vehicles of the people who come to the Auditorium is the need of the owner of the Auditorium. According to the tenants, it is the need of the people who come to the Auditorium and it is not the own need of the owner of the Auditorium.

7. Indisputably, letting out the Auditorium on rent is part of hospitality business and unless sufficient parking space is provided for the vehicles, the business would suffer. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel that though the actual beneficiaries are the owners of the vehicles, the need to provide adequate space to alleviate the inconvenience is that of the owner of the Auditorium.

8. The next question to be considered is, whether the need of providing parking space, after demolition of the building in occupation of the tenants, would fall under the expression 'building for his own occupation' contemplated under Sec.11(3) of the Act. According to the tenants, any use of the space, after demolition of the building in occupation of the tenants, is not envisaged under Sec.11(3) of the Act. They contended that the usage of the building, as such, after eviction of the tenants, is contemplated under the said expression.

9. In earlier decisions, this Court has interpreted the expressions "building" and "own occupation" contemplated under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In P. Muhamed Kanhu v. H. A. Asnarkunju [1965 (1) KLR 323] this Court held that if the petitioner bona fide needed the building for his own occupation and the finding of the Rent Control Court is