K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question involved in this Revision is, apart from proving the bona fide need under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, whether it is necessary for the landlord further to prove that the claim is bona fide under sub-s. (10) of S. 11 of the Act. The Rent Control Revision is filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The landlord had prayed for eviction on the ground under S. 11(4)(ii) as well and the Rent Control Court had allowed eviction on that ground as well. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the same.

2. Sub-section (1) of S. 11 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Act provides for various grounds for eviction like arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation of the landlord or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him, that the tenant has sublet the building, that the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently, that the tenant has in his possession another building reasonably sufficient for his requirements, that the building is required bona fide for the landlord to reconstruct the same, that the landlord wants to renovate the building etc. Sub-ss. (7) and (8) of S. 11 also provide for other grounds for eviction. Under S. 11(3), the landlord may 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 by any member of his family dependent on him. S. 11(4) of the Act contains clauses (i) to (v) providing for eviction on different and distinct grounds. Sub-s. (7) of S. 11 applies where the landlord of a building is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution and the building is needed for the purpose of the institution. Sub-s. (8) of S. 11 provides that a landlord who is occupying only a part of the building may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.

3. For the purpose of this case, it would be apposite to extract sub-ss. (3) and (10) of S. 11 of the Act, which read thus:

11. Eviction of tenants:-

...........

(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court 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 by any member of his family dependent on him:

Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so:

Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business:

Provided further that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument:

Provided further that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be enti