Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

1. The tenant-respondent in RC(OP) No.4/2014, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ettumanoor, has filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-IV, Kottayam, dismissing the appeal, RCA No.40/2016, that challenged the order of eviction under Sections 11(2) (b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act').

2. The respondents/landlords, contended that the petition scheduled shop room was obtained by them by virtue of sale deed No.1514/2011 of Ettumanoor SRO. The tenant took the petition scheduled room on lease from its prior owner, wherein he is conducting a flower business. The room on the southern side of the petition scheduled room was taken on rent by the father of the landlords from the previous owners and was conducting a jewellery business therein. While so, the landlords herein purchased the entire building including the petition schedule room from its owners. It was contended that the rent at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per month had been paid upto April 2011 and the tenant defaulted on payment of the rent from May 2011.

3. The landlords also contended that the room where they are conducting the jewellery business, is inconvenient and not having sufficient space to display the ornaments and accommodate the customers and if the petition schedule room is also obtained, both can be joined together, which will provide sufficient and necessary space for running the jewellery business conveniently and profitably. It was also their contention that the tenant is hardly conducting any business in the petition schedule room.

4. The tenant filed an objection contending that it is his son P.J. Joy who is the tenant and that they are not aware of the purchase of the building by the present landlords. It is also contended that rent has been paid to the prior owners by P.J. Joy and no rent is due. It is also the argument of the tenant that the landlords are the owners of a double-storied building situated exactly opposite to the petition schedule room where they are conducting textile business and therefore, the petition schedule room is not at all necessary for them to expand the jewellery business.

5. The trial court considered the evidence of PW1 P.C.Suresh and Exts.A1 to A6 marked on their side. The tenant examined DWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.B1 to B11(a). Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as court exhibits. The Rent Control Court, after considering the rival contentions and appreciating the evidence adduced, ordered eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the. The tenant filed the appeal reiterating the contentions taken before the Rent Control Court.

6. The Appellate Authority found that going by Ext.A2 judgment in O.S.No.183/2012, which was a suit filed by P.J.Joy, son of the tenant herein, it was found that the petitioners before the Rent Control Court were the landlords and that the present respondent is the tenant in the petition scheduled room. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.183/2012 have become final between the parties and therefore, the appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court that the respondent in the Rent Control Petition was the tenant.

7. Regarding the order of eviction granted by the trial court under Section 11(2)(b), the appellate court held that after the filing of the appeal, the respondent had paid the arrears of rent and accordingly vacated the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the. Since there is no appeal at the instance of the landlords, the correctness of the said finding under Section 11(2)(b) of theis not an issue to be decided in this case.

8. Regarding the contention of the tenant that a new building has been put up by the landlords just opposite to the petition schedule room, ideal to conduct a jewellery business, we hold that it was entirely upto the landlords to decide where to start the business. The landlords had specifically pleaded and it is an admitted fact that the petition scheduled room and the building where the landlords are presently conducting the jewellery business are separated by a wall and if the petition scheduled room is obtained, they can convert both rooms into one single room, which would be more convenient for running the jewellery business. Ext.C1 commission report also shows that there were alternate accommodations available in the locality within a radius of 300 metres of the petition schedule room. The evidence of the commissioner that if the petition schedule room is annexed to the room already in possession of the landlords, there will be space available for customers in the shop and will also change the awkward shape of the present rooms has been rightly accepted by the Courts below. As rightly found by the appellate court, evidence of DW1 clearly showed that he was not depending mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule room for his livelihood. In view of the above, we find that the courts below have rightly granted the orders of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents however argued before us that under Section 11(8) what is contemplated is a personal need that will not take in a commercial activity. Though this argument is taken for the first time in this revision, since it is an argument based on the facts involved in this case, we are proposing to consider the same. Section 11(8) of thereads 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."

10. While considering the ground of additional accommodation, three considerations arise, namely, the satisfaction of bonafides of the landlord in making such a claim, the landlord and the tenant occupying different parts of the same building and also the comparison of the hardship that may be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantages to the landlord. If these circumstances exist, the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(8). It goes without saying that in a claim under Section 11(8), not mere possession but occupation of the premises is a precondition for claiming eviction under Section 11(8). The additional accommodation sought must be supplementary to the existing requirement of the landlord and Court cannot impose any restriction with regard to the use of the additional accommodation from which the eviction of the tenant is sought. Additional accommodation need not be confined to the expansion of an existing trade. The words "additional accommodation" and "personal use" will not prevent the landlord from starting a new business or expanding the existing business. "Personal use" cannot be restricted to mean a non-commercial activity as argued by the revision petitioner herein. It is also to be noted that the additional accommodation contemplated by sub-Section 8 of Section 11 need not necessarily be that of the landlord but can also be the need of a dependent family member of the landlord as 'personal use' includes dependants as well, just as the need can be for residential purposes as well as for non-residential purposes.

11. On a reading of the above, we do not think that a restricted meaning has to be given to the word "personal" employed in this Section. "Personal use" only meant a user by the landlord and is not dependent on the nature of the activity for which eviction is sought. The nature of the activity is not circumscribed by the use of the word "personal" in this Section. The only requirement of Section 11(8) is that the landlord must be in possession of a room in the same building so as to claim additional accommodation. Admittedly, the landlord is in possession of a room adjacent to the tenanted premises. Therefore, Section 11(8) applies on all fours in this case. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. We find no merit in the revision, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he is doing business there, a reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to grant nine months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioners-landlords within nine months from the date of this order and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule building, and further he shall conduct any business in the petition schedule building only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities;

(ii) The revision petitioner shall deposit the damages for use and occupation which shall be equal to the rent fixed, with entire arrears on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default;

(iii) Needless to say, in the event of the revision petitioner failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.