Judgment :- John Mathew, J. The point thai arises for decision is whether the protection under S.11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (the Act) is available to a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8) of the Act. 2. A tenant who has been ordered to be evicted under S.11(8) of the Act is the revision petitioner. According to the landlord, lie leased out the southern portion of his residential building to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.7/-. The landlord and his family arc in occupation of the northern portion of the same building. His family consists of his wife, grown up daughters, three sons and a sister. The portion in his possession consists of two rooms, a kitchen and a varandah. The landlord is experiencing considerable difficulty due to lack of space. On these averments he filed the petition for eviction under S.11(8) of the Act since he required additional accommodation for his personal use. 3. The tenant contended thai the portion now occupied by the landlord issufficicnt for his accommodation. It was also contended that the tenant was in continuous occupation of the building prior to 1-4-1940 and therefore, he is entitled to the proteetion under S.11(17) of the Act. In this Civil Revision Petition we are not concerned with the othcrcontentions of the tenant since the findings on those contentions have become final. The authorities below found that the landlord was entitled to eviction and that the tenant was not entitled to the protection under S.11(17) of tiie Act. 4. In this Civil Revision Petition we are not concerned with the othcrcontentions of the tenant since the findings on those contentions have become final. The authorities below found that the landlord was entitled to eviction and that the tenant was not entitled to the protection under S.11(17) of tiie Act. 4. Section 11(17) of the Act is as follows: "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 bonafide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him, provided that a landlord of a residenlial building shall be entitled to evict such a tenant of that building if the landlord has been living in a place oulside the city, town or village in which the building is situated for a period of not less than five year*before he makes an application to the Rent Control Court for being put in possession of the building and requires the building, bonafide for his own 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 omitted as unnecessary for this case) 5. Relying on the judgment in Y.W.C. Association v. Jacob (1969 KLT 919) learned counsel for the tenant contended that the protection given undei 8.11(17) is available to a tenant who is sought to be evicted under sub-section (8) of S.11 of the Act also. Undersub-section(8)a tenant who has been in continuous occupation of a building from 1st April, 1940 shall not be liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or of any member of his family dependent on him. The words 'for bona fide occupation of the landlord or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him' which appear in S.11(17) of the Act is a re-production of the same words in S.11(3) of the Act. S.11 (8) of the Act does not contain those words. From this it is clear that sub-section (17) of S.11 docs not confer the benefit of that provision on a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8) of the Act. S.11 (8) of the Act does not contain those words. From this it is clear that sub-section (17) of S.11 docs not confer the benefit of that provision on a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8) of the Act. Accordingly we hold that the protection of S.11(17) of the Act can be claimed only by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(3) of the Act and not by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8) of the Act. 6. Therefore, the following passage in Y.W.C.Association v. Jacob (1969 KLT 919) requires clarification. "5 On reading S.11 as a whole, it is seen that there are only two provisions, which entitle a landlord to have an order for eviction of a tenant for the purpose of his own occupation. One is sub-section (3), and the other is sub-section (8). It appears to be clear that the protection given under 8.11(17) to a tenant, who has been in continuous occupation of a building from 1st April, 1940, is available only against a landlord who seeks eviction bona fide for his own occupation orfor the occupation of any member of his family. In other words the said protect ion is available only for a tenant who is sought to be evicted under sub-section (3) or sub-section (8) of SM." From a readingof this judgment it is clear that the underlined portion (underlining ours for easy reference ) was included by a clerical mistake. It is not in accordance with the earlier portions of the judgment or with S.11(17) of the Act. In that case this Court was only concerned with the applicability of S.11(17) of the Act to a proceeding under 8.11(17) of the Act. Therefore, the judgment in Y. W. C.Association v. Jacob (1969 KLT 919) will stand clarified in accordance with oTir finding recorded in the previous paragraph. 7. There is no illegality or impropriety in the finding that the landlord is entitled to get eviction under S.11(8) of the Act. So also the authorities below have rightly held that the hardship caused to the tenant by the order of eviction will not outweigh the advantage of the landlord. Thus there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. However, under the circumstances of this case we grant two months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises.