ORDER K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioner-landlord in a petition for eviction under section 11 (3) of the Kerala Building-(Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, is whether he is entitled to be put in possession of the building if he has no definite and consistent case that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family. 2. The petitioner applied to the Rent Control Court for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the building in his occupation, under section 11 (3) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965. The specific averment in the petition for eviction was: "Petitioner bona fide require the marginally noted building for the residence of the members of his family." The demand in the lawyer notice that preceded the eviction petition was: "Hence I request you to surrender the building No. IX/125 occupied by you on or before 30th June 1971 for the residence of my client's son." In his evidence before the Rent Control Court the petitioner has deposed as P.W.1: xxx xxx xxx The petitioner's son as P.W.2 has deposed: xxx xxx xxx 3. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition for eviction holding that the petitioner does not bona fide require the building for own occupation. For coming to the above conclusion the Rent Control Court has given the following reasons: Considering the status and business relationship of P.W.2 he would naturally be choosing to live in a house befitting his status. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner bona fide requires the building for the occupation of his son, P.W.2. The fact that the petitioner has accepted rent after the notice terminating tenancy makes it clear that the petitioner intended to treat the lease as subsisting. This disentitles the petitioner from claiming eviction. As the petitioner has other buildings and as the son, P.W.2, is living comfortably in a rented building, proviso one to section 11 (3) applies and the petitioner is not entitled to eviction. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing his petition for eviction. But the Appellate Authority dismissed that appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing his petition for eviction. But the Appellate Authority dismissed that appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. In the judgment the Appellate Authority said: The Rent Control Court was not right in observing that the petitioner has no specific case. The petition itself contains clear averments that the need is that of the petitioner's son. That is what has been spoken to by him at the time of evidence. There is no evidence at all on record to show that the person on whose behalf eviction is sought really requires the building for his purpose. The Rent Control Court has rightly denied relief to the petitioner and that finding does not require any interference. There is no waiver on the part of the petitioner-landlord. No notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary for maintaining a petition for eviction under section 11 of Kerala Act 2 of 1965. 5. The above judgment of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the District Court under section 20 of the Act. The revision was also dismissed. In dismissing the revision the learned District Judge said: A reading of the facts stated in the petition will show that the claim is not supported by any bona fides. At the time of the petition the petitioner was not certain regarding the use to which the building would be put to when he gets vacant possession. P.W.2 is not a person dependent on the petitioner. The advantage which P.W.2 or the petitioner would get will outweigh the disadvantage and inconvenience and the irreparable injury which can be caused to the respondent-tenant. 6. In this Civil Revision Petition the petitioner-landlord has attacked the above order passed by the District Judge in revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below ought to have accepted the evidence of P.W.2 the petitioner's son and held that the building was required for his own occupation. 7. 6. In this Civil Revision Petition the petitioner-landlord has attacked the above order passed by the District Judge in revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below ought to have accepted the evidence of P.W.2 the petitioner's son and held that the building was required for his own occupation. 7. Sub-sections (3), (8) and (10) of section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, read: "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: 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; (Provisos 2 to 4 are omitted as not relevant) "(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) The Rent Control Court shall, if it is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under sub-sections (3), (4), (7) or sub-section (8) is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Rent Control Court, and if the Court is not satisfied, it shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that, in the case of an application made under subsection (8) the Rent Control Court shall reject the application if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. (The 2nd proviso is omitted as not relevant) 8. Admittedly eviction was sought under section 11 (3) of the Act. (The 2nd proviso is omitted as not relevant) 8. Admittedly eviction was sought under section 11 (3) of the Act. Under sub-section (3) the tenant can be dispossessed only if the landlord bona fide needs the building, (i) for his own occupation or (ii) for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him. The two are distinct. Bona fide need for own occupation cannot be mixed with the bona fide need for the occupation of any member of his family who wants to have separate residence. Again, it is 'any member of his family'. Occupation by the landlord and occupation by a member of the family who wants to reside separately are different. In the latter case, the landlord will not be shifting to the building. So, if the landlord is to succeed in his attempt to get back possession he should have a definite and consistent case from the very beginning. A landlord cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath by changing his stand from his own occupation to the occupation of his sons or one of his sons. When two needs which are different and distinct in character are put forth the one thing that will be lacking is bona fides. In such a case the need will cease to be a bona fide need under the sub-section. The words used are 'for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family'. It is 'or' and not 'and' that is used. On the question of bona fide need inconsistency is writ large in the pleadings and evidence when read together. The petitioner landlord is not entitled to be put in possession of the building. The learned District Judge is not guilty of any error of jurisdiction to enable this court to interfere with the order impugned. 9. The learned District Judge has also dealt with the hardship of the respondent-tenant and the relative advantage of the petitioner-land lord if the tenant is dispossessed. This is not a relevant factor for consideration in an eviction petition under section 11 (3) of the Act. The question of hardship and advantage arises only in the cases of eviction under section 11 (8) where a landlord occupying a part of a building wants to evict a tenant in occupation of the whole or a portion of the remaining part. The question of hardship and advantage arises only in the cases of eviction under section 11 (8) where a landlord occupying a part of a building wants to evict a tenant in occupation of the whole or a portion of the remaining part. The learned District Judge has failed to notice this distinction. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.