Judgment :- 1. The 4th respondent Koilmukku St.George Church (referred to in this judgment as the Church) represented by its Vicar and trustee, namely respondents 5 and 6 is the owner of the buildings let out to the petitioners in these three original petitions. The Church applied for eviction of the petitioners under Ss.11(2), (3),(4) and (7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. At the trial however the Church confined its relief to S.11 (7) of the Act, which runs as under: "Where the landlord of a building is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is needed for the purposes of the institution, apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building." 2. The case set up was that it was a religious institution to which "lakhs of pilgrims" resorted every year for prayers and worship. The pilgrims experienced great difficulties, as the Church did not have suitable buildings to accommodate them. The Church needed the petition schedule buildings for reconstruction, after eviction to provide better facilities for the pilgrims. 3. The petitioners contested with the plea that the congregation of pilgrims takes place only at the time of the annual festival in the Church in the month of Medam every year. The festival is conducted only for less than a week. Only few pilgrims visit during the rest of the year. The pilgrims who come for the festival do not stay in the Church or in buildings belonging to the Church. There was no need to construct buildings to provide for pilgrims resorting for less than a week in the year. It was also contended that construction of buildings for the benefit of pilgrims was not a "purpose" of the Church justifying eviction under S.11(7). 4. The Vicar, namely the 5th respondent was examined. He deposed that the pilgrims ordinarily accommodated themselves in the verandahs of buildings and other open places, and during festival times, in school and college buildings and grounds. The fire works during the festival were conducted in the open space adjoining the Church, and that area was not therefore available for putting up buildings for pilgrims. 5. There is no dispute that the Church is a public religious institution entitled to invoke S.11(7) of the Act. The fire works during the festival were conducted in the open space adjoining the Church, and that area was not therefore available for putting up buildings for pilgrims. 5. There is no dispute that the Church is a public religious institution entitled to invoke S.11(7) of the Act. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the buildings are needed for the purposes of the Church, the case of the petitioners-tenants being that provision of accommodation for pilgrims is not such a purpose. 6. The Church in question is a well-known place of pilgrimage to which admittedly large number of people resort not only from Kerala, but also from Tamilnadu for worship. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation arranges special services for transport of pilgrims during the festival. The petitioners admit that no lodging facilities are available in the locality, so that the pilgrims have to fend for themselves in whatever places that are available. The Rent Control Court held that the requirement of the Church was bonafide. Its object was to develop spiritual well being in the public. The buildings were required for the purpose. The Church was therefore entitled to eviction under S.11 (7). This was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, and by the Revisional Court in revision under S.20 of the Act. Copies of the orders of the three authorities are Exts.P3, P4 and P5 respectively. Petitioners challenge them in these petitions under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Rightly enough, counsel for the petitioners Sri. S. Venkitasubramania Ayyar did not challenge the findings of fact entered by the authorities below. His contention was only that S.11 (7) which authorises eviction when the building is needed for purposes of the Church cannot be invoked as construction of buildings or shelters for occupation of pilgrims is not a "purpose" of the Church. 8. S. Venkitasubramania Ayyar did not challenge the findings of fact entered by the authorities below. His contention was only that S.11 (7) which authorises eviction when the building is needed for purposes of the Church cannot be invoked as construction of buildings or shelters for occupation of pilgrims is not a "purpose" of the Church. 8. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of the word "purpose" as follows: "The object which one has in view; intention resolution, determination, the object for which anything is done or made or for which it exists; end aim." Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon states:- "The word 'purpose' means that which a person sets before himself as an object to be reached or accomplished; the aim or end to which the view is directed in any plan, manner or execution; end or the view itself, design, intention." Webster puts it as follows: "(1) Something one intends to get or do; intention; aim (3) the object for which something exists; end in view." 9. S.11 (7) has been the subject of decision by this court in various cases. In Young Women's Christian Association v. Jacob, 1969 KLT 919, Isaac, J. dealt with the need of the association in that case for a building which they required for the purpose of expanding their activities to provide accommodation for tourists after reconstructing and remodelling the building. The object of the association inter alia was to promote spiritual, social, intellectual and physical welfare of women and to present fellowship and service as the ideal life. In that context it was held that providing accommodation for tourists was one of the purposes of the institution, for which eviction under S.11 (7) was permissible. 10. The matter was again dealt with by Sadasivan, J. in Electric and Motor Works v. Y. W.C.A. Trivandrum, 1970 KLT. 909 involving the same landlord as in the previous case. The learned judge held that providing accommodation for ladies coming from outside the city can justifiably be treated as "service" falling within the objects of the Association and that therefore eviction had rightly been ordered. 11. Vadakkel, J. had occasion to deal with the matter again in Church of South India Trust Association v. Ramanathan 1979 KLT 397, a case in which the landlord sought eviction for purposes of the Christian Literature Society and not for its own purposes. 11. Vadakkel, J. had occasion to deal with the matter again in Church of South India Trust Association v. Ramanathan 1979 KLT 397, a case in which the landlord sought eviction for purposes of the Christian Literature Society and not for its own purposes. The Judge stated that this was not a purpose of the landlord association but that the Christian Literature Society and therefore S.11 (7) was not available to the landlord. 12. This question had come up for consideration before the High Court of Madras on more than one decision, namely in Official Trustee of Madras v. Gopalji Champshi & Co., 1967 (1) M.LJ.(SN) Page 45, Bhakthavatsalu Chetty v. Natesa Achari, 1968 (1) M.L.J . 388, IV. Chetty v. P.A. Chetty, AIR 1971 Mad.354 and L.I.C of India v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1977(2) M.L.J. 283. In the first two of these cases, the at tempt of the landlord-trusts to evict the tenants, so that the buildings could be used as a Kalyanamandapam was held to be outside the purview of S.10(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act (corresponding to S.11(7) of the Kerala Act). Kailasam, J. however refused to follow these two decisions in I.V.Chetty's case where he held that the user of the premises as a Kalyanamandapam for increasing the income available to the trust for feeding the poor, was for purposes of the trust attracting S.10(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act In the L.I.C. case, the High Court of Madras went to the extent of saying that eviction with a view to provide housing accommodation for its employees by the Life Insurance Corporation was not permissible under S.10(3)(b) as such provision had nothing to do with the business or the purposes for which the Corporation had been established. Though the Corporation may be morally obliged to provide its staff with housing accommodation, it cannot be taken to be the purpose of the Corporation. 13. These decisions came up for consideration by Bhat, J. in O.P.No.4990 of 1987. In that case, the landlord, a public religious, cultural and charitable association which had constructed two Kalyanamandapams desired to expand its activities by starting a library and reading room for the benefit of its members. The Kalyanamandapams did not have facility for the stay of persons connected with the marriages conducted therein. Eviction was therefore sought to provide for these purposes. The Kalyanamandapams did not have facility for the stay of persons connected with the marriages conducted therein. Eviction was therefore sought to provide for these purposes. In that context, the leared judge referred to the above mentioned decisions. He found himself unable to agree with the reasoning of the Madras High Court in the L.I.C. case. The court had given a narrow connotation to the expression "purpose of the institution". In modern times of more enlightened approach towards management it could not be said that provision for housing accommodation to the staff was unconnected with the purpose of the Corporation. The requirement contemplated by S.10(3)(b) was for the purpose of the institution and not for occupation of the institution. This distinction had been lost sight of by the Madras High Court. 14. Bhat, J. then went on to note that the observations of this court in the Church of South India Trust Association Case, 1979 KLT 397 approving the view taken by the High Court of Madras in the first two Kalyanamandapam cases, and in the L.I.C. case, were obiter. The learned judge concurred with the ratio on I.V.Chetty's case in holding that a religious trust established for performing poojas and feeding the poor was entitled to get eviction of a building for putting up a Kalyanamandapam with a view to augment its income for feeding the poor. 15. I may here refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sudhan Singh v. University of Delhi, AIR 1986 SC710 where the Supreme Court dealt with the claim of the University of Delhi for eviction of tenants for providing residential accommodation to its employees. S.22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957 enabled a public institution to get eviction if the premises were required bona fide "for the furtherance of its activities". The Supreme Court noted that the University needed a contented group of employees for its smooth working. Residential accommodation for the employees was one of the most pressing requirements to make the employees contended. Therefore provision of accommodation to the employees directly comes within the expression "for the furtherance of its activities". Use of the building for the residence of the employees is intimately linked with its activities. 16. This decision must mutatis mutandis apply in these cases as well. 17. Therefore provision of accommodation to the employees directly comes within the expression "for the furtherance of its activities". Use of the building for the residence of the employees is intimately linked with its activities. 16. This decision must mutatis mutandis apply in these cases as well. 17. The question here is whether the provision of shelters or accommodation to pilgrims visiting the Church is not for the "purpose" of the Church. 18. Admittedly the Church in question is well-known centre to which Christians from Kerala and Tamil Nadu resort for worship. Lakhs of pilgrims congregate every year. These pilgrims have hitherto been fending for themselves in whatever places that are available "Purpose" means the end or object which a person has set before himself. The object of the Church is the spiritual, moral and mental elevation of the worshippers. It is the firm hope of deriving such benefits that attracts worshippers in legion to the Church. The Church exists for the pilgrims and for their solace. Necessarily the pilgrims are closely liked with the Church and its objects and have to be provided for. In doing so, the Church is acting in aid of the fulfilment of its objects. I am unable to adopt the narrow meaning attributed to the term "purpose" by confining it to the strictly religious purposes of the Church. Activities linked to the welfare of pilgrims coming for worship are as much for the purposes of the Church as the religious part of the activities themselves. I am of the view that any activity which is linked intimately to the attainment of the primary objects of the Church is also one for its purposes. The provision of pilgrim shelters or accommodation for pilgrims is one such activity for which eviction can be claimed under S.11(7). 19. I am therefore at one with the authorities below that the ground mentioned by the landlord for seeking eviction is one for the purposes of the institution. I must also note here that the Church had made detailed averments of their need in the petition for eviction. There was no dispute by the petitioners about the requirement of the Church for the premises, the contention being only that it was not a religious purpose. I overrule the contentions of the petitioners and dismiss these original petitions. Issue photo copy of the judgment on usual terms.