Judgment : Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Landlords as well as the tenant are in revision being aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction (partial eviction) of the premises which were subject matter of the rent control proceedings. RCR No.534/2005 is the revision filed by the landlords and RCR.479/2005 is the revision filed by the tenant. The landlord sought to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent under section 11(2) (b), for bonafide need for own occupation under section 11(3), on the ground of user of the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility under section 11(4)(ii), and the ground that the tenant acquired possession of an other building under Section 11(4)(iii). The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3). The appellate authority confirmed the order under section 11(2)(b) and modified the order under section 11(3) so as to order eviction only of a portion of the building, ownership of which stood allotted to the first revision petitioner in RCR.No.534/2005, under a partition deed. In the revision filed by the landlords they assail the order of partial eviction while in the revision filed by the tenant he assails not only the order of partial eviction but also the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent. After hearing both sides for some time regarding the correctness of the order of eviction passed under section 11(2)(b) Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the landlords submitted that as the order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) is only tentative the landlords are not worried about that order. In view of the above stand taken by the learned counsel for the landlord we are upholding the submissions of Sri. M.C. Madhavan, learned counsel for the tenant and we vacate the order of eviction under section 11(2)(b). 2. The only issue now surviving for consideration is whether the order of partial eviction passed by the appellate authority under section 11(3) is sustainable. 3. The case of the landlords who are brother and sister in the context of the ground under section 11(3) is that landlord No.1 is a retired Medical Practitioner who wants to occupy the entire petition schedule building for starting his own clinic in Pediatrics. 3. The case of the landlords who are brother and sister in the context of the ground under section 11(3) is that landlord No.1 is a retired Medical Practitioner who wants to occupy the entire petition schedule building for starting his own clinic in Pediatrics. The bonafides of the need was disputed by the tenant who contended that the landlord’s idea was to evict the tenant by hook or by crook. At trial by the rent control court landlord No.1 got himself examined as PW1. Despite cross examination he stood firm on his case that he needs to occupy the entire building for starting his clinic. His evidence inspired the rent control court very much. That court would hold that the need is bonafide and ordered eviction. The ground which was seriously pursued before the appellate authority was that the tenancy already stood split up and hence the needy person, landlord No.1 cannot aspire to have eviction over that portion of the building, ownership of which stood vested in his sister, the 2nd petitioner in the RCP. The appellate authority was very much impressed. The appellate authority noticed that petitioner No.2, Smt. K. Premakumari, had not mounted the witness box to prove the claim projected in the RCP According to the appellate authority Smt. Premakumari was the landlord in her own right in respect of half portion of the building allotted to her under the partition deed between the brother and sister and Dr. Gopakumar, brother will never qualify as dependent on her for the purpose of section 11(3). The appellate authority, however found nothing in the evidence to doubt the correctness of the finding entered by the Rent Control Court that the need projected by Dr. Gopakumar to start his own clinic was a bonafide one. Therefore what the appellate authority did was to confirm that finding and to order partial eviction on the basis of his view that Gopakumar is entitled for an order of eviction only in respect of that portion of the building obtained by him towards his exclusive share under the partition. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri. M.C. Madhavan, learned counsel for the tenant and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the landlord. Mr. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri. M.C. Madhavan, learned counsel for the tenant and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the landlord. Mr. Madhavan drew our attention to the judgment of this court in Mar Apprem Kuri Company Ltd., vs. Dix (2004 (1) KLT 678) and submitted that the learned appellate authority has virtually followed the principles laid down in that judgment. Sri. Kalkura referred to our own judgment in George K. vs. Thankamma Varghese and others (2009 (2) KHC 712) and submitted that in the present case where the two landlords viz. brother and sister were not desirous of splitting up the tenancy and wanted the tenancy of the tenant in question to continue under them even after the partition deed was executed, the Learned Appellate Authority cannot import the principles relating to splitting up of tenancy for the purpose of restricting the order of eviction passed by the rent control court in respect of the entire building, to a portion of the building. Sri. M.C. Madhavan while assailing the finding of the appellate authority that the need projected by Dr. Gopakumar was bonafide and canvassing for a dismissal of the rent control petition in full would submit that if the court is in a position to sustain the finding arrived by the rent control court that the need projected by Sri. Gopakumar is bonafide one, that there may be justification for ordering eviction of the entire building. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the bar. According to us, the concept of splitting up of tenancy which is explained by the Division Bench of this court in Mar Apprem Kuri Company’s case and further by another Division Bench (Our own bench in George vs. Thankamma Varghese (2009 (2) KHC 712) cannot have any application in the present case where the two landlords the petitioners in the RCP wanted the original tenancy given to the tenant in this case to continue as one tenancy under their joint landlordship. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Jivram Ranchhoddas Thakkar and another vs. Tulshiram Ratanchand Mantri and others (AIR 1977 SC 1357) authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer perhaps can justify an order of partial eviction even in the absence of splitting up of tenancy. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Jivram Ranchhoddas Thakkar and another vs. Tulshiram Ratanchand Mantri and others (AIR 1977 SC 1357) authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer perhaps can justify an order of partial eviction even in the absence of splitting up of tenancy. That was a case where the Supreme Court found taking an over all view of the circumstances obtaining in that case, that a portion of the building which was subject matter of that case can be delivered over to the landlord and the other portion can be allowed to be retained by the tenant. This was on the basis of what was described as the policy of live and let live. According to us, section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay statute which was considered by the Supreme Court in that judgment does not have much to do with the sub section (3) of section 11 of the Kerala Statute. In fact section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Statute is more akin to section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Statute. The view which is consistently taken by this court in cases under section 11(4)(iii) is that once it is shown that the tenant has acquired possession of another building reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirement in the same city, town or village the tenant will entail liability for eviction and that when it becomes evident that the tenant has acquired possession of another building, it is the tenant’s burden to prove that the said building is not reasonably sufficient or his requirements. 6. Of course Sub Rule 8 of Rule 11 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Rules provides that the statutory authorities should be governed by principles of equity, justice and good conscience while taking decision. As for the present case the building in question is not a very big building. The need projected by the landlord is that Dr. Gopakumar who retired from the Government service wants to start a full fledged clinic in pediatrics. According to us even on equitable considerations, once the need is found to be bonafide, the order of eviction will have to be passed in respect of the entire building once it is seen that the provisos to section 11(3) do not operate against the landlord. 7. The persuasive submissions of Mr. According to us even on equitable considerations, once the need is found to be bonafide, the order of eviction will have to be passed in respect of the entire building once it is seen that the provisos to section 11(3) do not operate against the landlord. 7. The persuasive submissions of Mr. Madhavan notwithstanding, our reappraisal of the evidence in the case shows that the finding by the statutory authorities that the need of Dr. Gopakumar projected by him in the RCP was a bonafide one, is proper. We do not find any warrant for interference with that finding within the contours of section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The result of the above discussion is as follows: 8. RCR.No.479/2005 is allowed to the extent of vacating the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent. RCR.No.534/2005 is allowed to the extent of ordering eviction under section 11(3) in respect of the entire building which is subject matter of the RCP. 9. As a last plea Mr. Madhavan requested that the tenant be given one years time to vacate the premises. This request is opposed by Sri. Kalkura. However having regard to the totality of the case we grant time for vacating the premises till 31.3.2011 subject to the following conditions. The tenant shall file affidavit before the Execution Court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the entire building presently occupied by him on or before 31.3.2011 and that he will discharge the arrears of rent if any which was fallen due subsequent to the filing of the RCP less any amount paid so far within six weeks from today and that he will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rate till he surrenders. We make it clear that the tenant will not get benefit of time granted as above unless he files affidavit on time.