Point of law : Rent Control legislation contemplates eviction of the tenant only on enumerated grounds as referred in Section 11.

ORDER :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The landlord secured an eviction order from the Rent Controller under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the 'Act'). In an appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate authority reversed the order of eviction under Section 11(3) and converted it into an eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. In this revision, the tenant questions the proceedings of eviction on the ground that the landlord's claim under Section 11(3) having been dismissed and, without maintaining a separate challenge, the landlord cannot claim the benefit of an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act.

2. The landlord approached the Rent Controller under Section 11(3) projecting bona fide need to start a stitching unit. In the upstairs, the landlord is conducting a textile business. The Rent Controller allowed eviction under Section 11(3). The tenant is found not entitled for protection from eviction under the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act as she failed to prove that the income from the building is her main source of income. Admittedly, the tenanted premises is being used as a godown for the business of her husband. In appeal, the rent control appellate authority, noting the fact that the tenanted premises is a part of the building owned by the landlord, upheld the claim of the landlord under Section 11(8) and ordered eviction accordingly.

3. Perhaps, it is necessary to distinguish the features of eviction that can be sought under Sections 11(3) and 11(8). Section 11(3) allows eviction if the building is required for own occupation of the landlord or a dependant family member. This is subject to further rigour under the first and second provisos of Section 11(3). The first proviso states that if the landlord has another building of his own, in his possession, in the same town or locality, the Rent Controller shall not order eviction on proof of bona fide need except for special reasons to be recorded. The second proviso also states that even if the landlord is able to establish his bona fide need, the tenant shall not be evicted if the tenant is depending, for his livelihood, mainly on the income derived from the trade or business carried out in such building and there are no suitable buildings to shift such business. Section 11(8) would come into play if the tenanted premises is part of the larger building in possession of the landlord and the landlord requires the building for an additional accommodation for his personal use. The Rent Controller can reject the application for additional accommodation if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord.

4. The landlord is the master of the petition for eviction. A need for occupation of the building may arise in different context. The need projected under Section 11(3) can also be claimed under Section 11(8). It is for the landlord to choose his ground for eviction either under Section 11(3) or Section 11(8) of the Act. The need that can be claimed under Section 11(8) for additional accommodation for his personal use, can also be projected under Section 11(3). The Rent Controller in such circumstances is required to consider whether the need projected would come under either Section 11(3) or 11(8), as the case may be, as projected by the landlord in the petition for eviction. The requirement being in both the cases related to the personal choice of the landlord, it will not change the character of such choice exercised under Section 11(3), merely for the reason that the choice so exercised was in respect of a part of the building, to attract the same, under Section 11(8). The Full Bench of this Court in Smitha and Another v. V.Krishnan [2017 (1) KHC 81 (FB)], Kunhammi v. Abdullakutty [2015 (1) KLT 795 (FB)] and of the Division Bench of this Court in Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy [2006 (3) KLT 129] have held that Sections 11(3) and 11(8