Kurian Joseph, J.

The inter-rleationship between Ss. 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arises for consideration in this case. This writ petition is at the instance of a tenant in a Rent Control filed by the 4th respondent landlord under Ss. 11(2), 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on all the three grounds as per Ext. P2 order, which was confirmed in Ext. P3 judgment by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and that led the petitioner to this court in the writ petition.

2. The tenant entered into a written agreement with the landlord on 28.7.1978 for the occupation of the petition schedule building for a period of six months agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.60. Thereafter in 1982 when the landlord required the petitioner to surrender vacant possession, the tenant took up a contention that after the rental arrangement originally agreed to for six months he had made certain investment in the building for the purpose of his tyre resoling business and that those arrangements were made on the basis of an oral agreement between the parties that the tenant could continue for a period of ten years and an amount of Rs.1000/- had already been paid on that basis to the landlord. Refuting the position the landlord approached the Munsiff’s Court, Wadakkancherry in O.S. No. 88 of 1982 during the pendency of which the provisions of the Act were extended to Choondal Panchayat where the building is situated. Hence proceedings under the Act were initiated by the landlord for eviction on the grounds of S. 11(2) - arrears or rent -, S. 11(4)(iv) - bona fide need for reconstruction - and S. 11(8) - bonafide need for additional accommodation. It is interesting to note that the landlord had taken up a Commission for substantiating the need for reconstruction. Ext. C3 is the report dated 21.3.1986 of the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) Section, Kunnamkulam which reads as follows:

“I have inspected the schedule property on 15.3.1986 w.rf. above. I may report that the building concerned is in a very dilapidated condition which may collapse at any time. The walls are seen out of plump and main pillar which takes load is sunk and is temporarily protected by two wooden pillars. There are cracks in masonry also which was constructed in laterite in mud which is also not safe. Hence I may report that the entire building concerned is not safe in the present condition and there is no possibility to repair the existing building.”

3. We are told at the Bar that inspite of such a precarious condition the petition schedule building is still occupied by the tenant though only certain ‘parts’ of the room are there now. It is to be noted that the petition schedule room forms part of a line building having two rooms and a hall and the eastern most room is the one occupied by the tenant. The hall is occupied by the landlord and she is conducting a rice mill business there. It is for expansion of the said business she needed the premises and hence ground under S. 11(8).

4. As already mentioned above both the authorities have entered a clear finding concurrently that the landlord is entitled to succeed on all the three grounds. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. N.P. Samuel mainly urged that a petition under Ss. 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Act is misconceived and would belie the bonafides which is required to be established in both the sections. There was also a further contention that for succeeding under S. 11(8) of the Act the landlord should require part of the buildings as such in the possession of the tenant and not the space occupied by the tenant which can be used after reconstruction.

5. It is profitable to extract the relevant statutory provisions before analysing the inter-relationship between Ss. 11(4)(iv) and 11(8) of the Act:

“11. Eviction of tenants:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(4) A l