Judgment :- Koshy, J. Respondent in this revision petition filed RCP No. 168 of 1991 for evicting the revision petitioner/ tenant under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the act). The building consisting of two rooms was used by the revision petitioner as his Homeopathy Pharmacy and his consultation room for practising homeopathic medicine. The respondent/landlord is employed in an oil exploration company at Bombay. His family, i.e., his wife and children are residing with his uncle. Since he has no other building of his own for accommodating the family, he bonafide requires the petition scheduled building and therefore, petition under S.11(3) was filed. Rent Control Court found that there is no bonafide need. Hence, eviction petition was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate Authority found that there is bonafide need and revision petitioner/ tenant can be evicted under S.11 (3) of the Act. The claim of the revision petitioner under second proviso to S.11(3) that he cannot be evicted because he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality to carry on such trade or business was not considered by both the authorities on the ground that he is a homeopathic doctor doing medical profession and he is not entitled to raise such a contention as he is not carrying on any trade or business. 2. In Sethurania Menon v. Meenakshi Amma (1966 KLT 665) it was held that it is impossible to accede to the contention that a member of the profession is carrying on a trade or a business, to eke out his livelihood from the business, of the practice of the profession. Therefore, when the building is taken for carrying on a profession, it cannot be stated that one is carrying on business or trade. In 5. Mohan Lai v. R. Kondiah (AIR 1979 SC 1132) it was held that practice carried on by an advocate in relation to his profession can be said to be business. It was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: "It is a common expression which is sometimes used by itself and sometimes in a collocation of words as in" business, trade or profession'. It is a word of large and wide import, capable of a variety of meanings. It was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: "It is a common expression which is sometimes used by itself and sometimes in a collocation of words as in" business, trade or profession'. It is a word of large and wide import, capable of a variety of meanings. It is needless to refer to the meanings given to that term in the various dictionaries except to say that everyone of them notices a large number of meanings of the word. In a broad sense, it is taken to mean, 'everything that occupies the time, attention and labour of men for the purpose of livelihood of profit'. In a narrow sense, it is confined to commercial activity. It is obvious that the meaning of the word must be gleaned from the context in which it is used. Reference to the provisions of the Constitution or other statutes where the expression is used cannot be of any assistance in determining its meaning in S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. It is not a sound principle of construction to interpret the expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act; more so if the two Acts in which the same word is used are not cognate Acts. Neither the meaning, nor the definition of the term in one statute affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally. On the other hand, it is sound, and indeed, a well-known principle of construction that meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear." A learned Single Judge of this Court distinguished the above decision in Krishnankutty Menon v. Malathi (1985 KLT 6) and again found that it is impossible to accede the contention that a member of the legal profession is carrying on a trade or a business, to eke out his livelihood from the business, of the practice of the profession. Learned Judge distinguished the Supreme Court decision stating that the decision is applicable only on the wording of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. Learned Judge distinguished the Supreme Court decision stating that the decision is applicable only on the wording of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. In that Act also, business was not defined and Supreme Court has given a wider meaning for the term 'business'. It was held by the learned Single Judge in Krishnankutty Menon's case that such a wider meaning is not to be given while interpreting second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Act. In Hassan v. Mohammed (1994 (1) KLT 502) also the same view was taken and it was held that medical profession carried on in the building cannot be held as trade or business. 3. The Supreme Court in Dr. Jess Raphael v. K.L. Regina Joseph (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 190) considered the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Act and it was held that nursing home run by the doctor is Iris business. It was further held that so long as commercial activity is carried on, it will be enough to call 'business'. Supreme Court pointed out that the decision of the Apex Court in 5. Mohan Lai v. R. Kondiah wherein it was held that the profession carried on by an advocate is a business cannot be distinguished merely stating that it was decided in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Meaning of business in second proviso to S.11(3) was analysed and it was held that Mohan Lai's case is applicable to here also. For the meaning of the word 'business' Apex Court also referred to the definition of business in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition at page 198 where the word business is defined as under: "Business - Employment, occupation, profession, or commercial activity engaged in for gain or livelihood. Activity or enterprise for gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood. Union League Club v. Johnson. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to in vest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious concern or interest or for livelihood or profit. See also Association; company; Corporation; Doing business; Joint enterprise; Partnership; Place of business; Trade." In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court Dr. Jess Raphael v. K.L. Regina Joseph (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 190) and in 5. Motion Lalv. See also Association; company; Corporation; Doing business; Joint enterprise; Partnership; Place of business; Trade." In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court Dr. Jess Raphael v. K.L. Regina Joseph (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 190) and in 5. Motion Lalv. R. Kantliah (AIR 1979 SC 1132) the decisions of this court in Hassan v. Mohammed (1994 (1) KLT 502); Krishnankutty Menon v. Motto/u (1985 KLT 6) and in Sethurama Afenon v. Meenakshi Amnia (1966 KLT 655) are no longer good law. 4. In this case, the tenant is carrying on homeopathy medical practice and is also running a pharmacy for selling medicine. applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jess Raphael's case, it is a trade or business. Whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of second proviso to S.11(3) was not considered either by the Rent Control Court or the appellate Authority on the understanding that profession of a doctor is not trade or business. Since we have set aside the above finding the matter has to be reconsidered. Since the matter of application of second proviso to S.11(3) has to be considered simultaneously with the bonafide need, we set aside the decision of the appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court and remand the matter to the Rent Control Court for fresh decision according to law. Both parties are free to adduce further evidence, if they require. Since the Rent Control Petition was filed in 1991 the case may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the Rent Control Court. Parties may appear before the Rent Control Court on 15th January, 1997. With the above direction, we allow the revision petition by way of remand.