JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

Whether shifting of an existing business of the landlord from the first floor to the ground floor would attract Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act or not ? This is the simple question to be decided in this revision.

2. The tenant who is aggrieved by the concurrent findings under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter), questions the legality of the order in this revision. The niceties of the distinction between Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act are drawn for our attention by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Saneesh Kumar K., who argued in extenso. According to him, if the need is to shift the existing business from the first floor to the ground floor, only Section 11 (3) of the Act would be attracted and not Section 11(8). According to him, it is not for the purpose of expansion of a present business, but the need is projected to shift the entire business from the first floor to the ground floor. He also raised the point of the non-consideration of the malafides attributed by the tenant in the pleadings by both authority. We shall also advert to these points at a later stage of the judgment. We also heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sudhi Vasudevan, who has been instructed to appear in this matter for the landlady.

3. We shall now advert to Section 11(3) of the Act, which reads thus:

“(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 entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.”

Section 11(8) of the Act, reads thus:

(8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a 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.

The bonafide need for a landlord to occupy a building may arise in different contexts. If such need arises, not in connection with any other building in occupation of the landlord, it necessarily mean that claim for eviction is under Section 11(3). If he is in occupation of a portion of the building and his need is to occupy the other portion of the existing building, he can opt; his need can be either under Sections 11(3) or 11(8). The distinction between Sections 11(3) and 11(8) is essentially relating to the occupation of the remaining portion of the building of the tenanted premises by the landlord. If any portion of the building is in occupation of the landlords, he can c