John Mathew, J.

The respondent-tenant in R.C.P. No.34 of 1986 is the revision petitioner. That rent control petition was filed by the respondent herein, who is referred to as the landlord, for eviction of the tenant under S.11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the.

2. According to the landlord, the eastern portion of the petition schedule building and its up stair portion are in the occupation of the tenant, which were rented out to the tenant and he is doing business in that portion along with his own adjoining premises. The western portion of the building is in the occupation of the landlord where he is doing hardware business. The tenant is employed in Canada for the last more than two decades. He comes to Ernakulam only occasionally. The landlord bona fide requires the petition schedule premises as additional accommodation for his personal use. There is no sufficient space now in his possession for doing his business.

3. Although the tenant raised several contentions before the Rent Control Court, it is not necessary to refer to all those contentions in this order. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S.11(8) of the. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority the tenant urged mainly one point viz. his claim for the benefits under 3.11(17) of the since he came into possession before 1-4-1940. The Appellate Authority did not accept that contention and confirmed the order of eviction. In this Court learned counsel for the tenant has raised only his claim for protection under S.11(8) of the.

4. Therefore, the only point to be considered is whether the revision petitioner-tenant is entitled to protection under 8.11(17) of the, which is as follows:

"11(1) 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 this Act: (Proviso to that sub-section as well as sub-sections 2 to 16 are omitted).

(17) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section a tenant who has been in continuous occupation of a building from 1st April 1940 as a tenant, shall not be liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him, provided that a landlord of a residential building shall be entitled to evict such a tenant of that building if the landlord has been living in a place outside the city, town or village in which the building is situated for a period of not less than five years before he makes an application to the Rent Control Court for being put in possession of the building, and requires the building bona fide for his own permanent residence or for the permanent residence of any member of his family or the landlord is in dire need of a place for residence and has none of his own.

Explanation-In computing the period of continuous occupation from 1st April, 1940, the period, if any, during which the landlord was residing outside the city, town or village in which the building is situate shall be excluded". (underlining ours for emphasis)

5. On a reading of sub-section (17) it is clear that the benefit under that sub-section is available to a tenant who has been in continuous occupation of the building from 1st April, 1940. Such a tenant shall not be liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him. However, if the landlord has been living in a place outside the city, town or village in which the building is situated for a period of not less than five years before he makes an application to the Rent Control Court, and if he requires the building bona fide for his own permanent residence or for the permanent residence of any member of his family, or if the landlord is in dire need of a place for residence and has none of his own, he shall be entitled to evict such a tenant. From the first part of the sub-section it is clear that a tenant who is liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him alone is entitled to claim the benefit under this sub-section. S.11 of the enumerates several grounds under which a landlord may claim eviction of his tenant, like arrears of rent, subletting by tenant, tenant possessing alternate accommodation, building requires reconstruction, tenant ceases to occupy the building and requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord. Another ground is under

S.11(3) viz, bona fide requirement for own use, which is as follows:

"11(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".

(Provisos omitted - underlining ours for emphasis)

The words for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him which appear in S.11(17) of the are similar to the ground under S.11(3) of the. None of the other sub-sections contains similar words. A tenant who is liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him alone is entitled to claim the benefit under this sub-section. S.11 of the enumerates several grounds under which a landlord may claim eviction of his tenant, like arrears of rent, subletting by tenant, tenant possessing alternate accommodation, building requires reconstruction, tenant ceases to occupy the building and requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord. From a reading of S.11 as a whole it is clear that the benefit of sub-section (17) of S.11 is available only to tenants who are liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him viz. the tenants who arc liable to be evicted under S.11(3) of the.

6. S.11(8) of the is as follows:

"11(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".

Tenants who are liable to be evicted under S.11(8) of the are not included in S.11(17) of the. The contention that in view of the non-obstante clause in S.11(17) of the, :S.11(8) of the is also taken in, cannot be accepted. Thus the revision petitioner who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8) of the cannot claim the protection under 8.11(17) of the.

7. Learned counsel for the tenant-revision petitioner has referred to the order in Rebecca Thomas v. C.J. Joseph, C.R.P. No. 107 of 1980 (1982 KLT S.N. Case No. 87) as well as Y. W.C. Association v. Jacob (1969 KLT 919) in support of his contention that the tenant is entitled to the protection under S.11(17) of the. We are of the view that these decisions, to the extent they are against our above finding did not interpret S.11(17) correctly. Learned counsel also referred to the decisions reported in Union of India v. G.M. Kokil (AIR 1984 SC 1022 [LQ/SC/1984/84] ), H. Shiva Rao v. CeciliaPereira (AIR 1987 SC 248 [LQ/SC/1986/448] ) and Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96 [LQ/SC/1991/439] ) in support of the contention that in view of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (17) of S.11, subsection (8) of S.11 is taken in by sub-section (17). It cannot be disputed that these decisions have settled the scope and meaning of non-obstante clauses in Statutes. However, we are of the view that those principles have no application in the present case.

8. We have taken the same view in respect of S.11(17) of the in Damodara Prabhu v. JaganathaPrabhu (1993(1) KLT 614 = 1993 (1) KLJ 585 [LQ/KerHC/1993/139] ). The contention of the learned counsel that the said decision requires reconsideration cannot be accepted.

9. We asked learned counsel for the revision petitioner whether his client is agreeable to give an undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building within a reasonable time and if so, we can grant some reasonable time for him to vacate the building. Learned counsel stated that his client is not willing to give any such undertaking. Even so, learned counsel prayed that some time may be granted to challenge this order before the Honble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the landlord, who had filed a caveat pointed out that as per Ext. Cl Commissioners report the area now in the possession of the landlord is 43.31 sq. metres and that the area in the possession of the tenant is 260.9 sq. metres. Even after eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building, the tenant will be in possession of more area than the total area of the landlord and he can continue his business without any difficulty. It was also submitted that this Rent Control Petition was filed in 1986 and no further time may be granted to vacate the premises. However, under the circumstances of this case we adjourn the delivery which is posted in 10-8-1993 to 7-9-1993.

There is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. It is accordingly dismissed subject to the above direction.