ORDER : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant of a building who is conducting a printing press under the name and style 'Jayabarath Printers'. The entire building is a three storied one and the portion in occupation of the tenant is in the ground floor. The tenancy started in the year 1988 and the present landlord purchased the building in the year 2000 and the tenant has attorned to the respondent herein. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the revision petition. 2. The respondent/landlord sought eviction for own occupation for the purpose of his son, to start a super market. The building is in Edappal town. It was contended that it is a fast developing area and the idea is to start a super market using the petition schedule room and the adjoining room. The entire building is having on its northern side Ponnani-Palakkad road and there is another passage from the eastern side also. The landlord also contended that his son Nizar is not having any job or income and he is very poor in his studies and had studied only upto 7th standard, after spending 10 years. The landlord was in a foreign country and has returned now and settled in his native place. The son Nizar is the eldest and the landlord has persuaded him to appear for the SSLC examination. But he is not interested in studying. It was also submitted that the petition schedule room, if evicted, the landlord will have that room by the side of a larger room lying vacant and there will be two passages to the place, one from the Ponnani - Palakkad road and the other from the eastern public road. The larger room which is lying vacant, is just on the southern side of the petition schedule room. 3. The tenant, in the objection raised various contentions. The bonafide need pleaded was disputed and it was pleaded that the son of the landlord, Shri Nizar is a student and there is no urgent need for him to do the business. It was pointed out that the landlord is having other several rooms in his possession in the same building. The landlord, is in possession of another ground floor room which is numbered as Room No.5 in the sketch attached to the commission report. It was pointed out that the landlord is having other several rooms in his possession in the same building. The landlord, is in possession of another ground floor room which is numbered as Room No.5 in the sketch attached to the commission report. The same is close to the room lying vacant which is having 1200 sq. ft. area and therefore both can be used for starting the business. There are rooms lying in the first and second floors of the same building which can also be used by the landlord for doing business. 4. According to the petitioner tenant, the immediate provocation in filing an eviction petition is that the tenant had made a complaint to the local authority when the landlord made a leach pit on the back side of the petition schedule room. Exorbitant rent was also demanded. It was also pleaded that his entire family consisting of his wife and three daughters as well as his mother, are depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building, for their livelihood. The tenant has got only 20 cents of property. 5. P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined on the side of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A9 have been marked. Exts.C1 to C4 are Commission reports and plans. The tenant has produced Exts.B1 to B4 and R.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and C.W.1 is the court witness. 6. Apart from the ground under Section 11(3), another plea was there under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Both the grounds were found in disfavour by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority has reversed the same in the appeal filed by the landlord and eviction has been ordered under Section 11(3) and ground for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) was disallowed. Against the said order, the tenant has come up in revision. 7. We heard Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. Sethumadhavan, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the whole the Appellate Authority has taken a perverse view and the order passed by the Rent Control Court is a well considered one. It is submitted that none of the relevant aspects have been considered properly by the Appellate Authority. 9. 8. Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the whole the Appellate Authority has taken a perverse view and the order passed by the Rent Control Court is a well considered one. It is submitted that none of the relevant aspects have been considered properly by the Appellate Authority. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that actually the landlord is having in his possession other rooms in the petition schedule building. Therefore, it is a case where the requirement of the landlord is under Section 11(8) of the Act, viz. for additional accommodation. The said aspect has not been examined by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. In the light of the above, learned counsel submitted that the matter will have to be remanded back for fresh consideration. 10. It is submitted that for conducting the supermarket, eviction of the petition schedule room is not required. Room No.5 in Ext.C4 plan produced along with the Commission report is already in the possession of the landlord and there is a direct passage from that room to the larger hall which is in the possession of the landlord. Therefore, the plea that for the purpose of passage from Palakkad - Ponnani main road, the petition schedule room is required, cannot be justified, as room No.5 is also having direct road frontage. It is further submitted that another room has also became vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings which also can be utilised by the landlord. 11. Attacking the bonafide need of the landlord, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the affidavit filed before this Court along with LA. No.78/2011 wherein it has been clearly alleged that the landlord has entered into an agreement for sale of the building with one Abdu for a price of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and has received a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as advance sale consideration. In the light of the subsequent event, the bonafide need does not survive. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the view taken by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on various judgments of this Court to explain the legal position concerning Section 11(8) of the Act. 12. In the light of the subsequent event, the bonafide need does not survive. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the view taken by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on various judgments of this Court to explain the legal position concerning Section 11(8) of the Act. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent, Shri T. Sethumadhavan submitted that the plea that the bonafide need has been eclipsed by the subsequent event in the landlord executing an agreement for sale, is not a correct one since in the counter affidavit filed by the landlord he has stated that the agreement did not come through and there is no proposal for sale. It is submitted, by relying upon the decisions of this Court that even if the landlord had taken steps to sell the property during the pendency of the eviction petition, that cannot be taken as a ground to deny eviction. Learned counsel also submitted that if the petition schedule room is vacated, the landlord will get access directly from the main road as well as from the passage on the east. The large hall is on the rear side and petition schedule room which is numbered as No.2 in the plan produced by the Commissioner abuts it. It is submitted that the room lying vacant, numbered as 5, is a staircase room which is very small having measurement 300 x 540 cms. The landlord has already obtained approval for the plan to have a convenient staircase to reach upper floors. The present staircase is having a narrow width. Therefore that room will not give proper and sufficient space to the landlord. If the petition schedule room is vacated, he will get additional space as well as access from the two sides. The room which became subsequently vacant, is on the side of the passage on the eastern side of the larger hall. It has no access to the hall which is to be developed as a super market. It is blocked on the southern side by the petition schedule room. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the plea now raised by the tenant that eviction should have been sought under Section 11(8) of the Act, is a new one which was not raised before the Rent Control Court as well as before the Appellate Authority. The same therefore will have to be rejected on the threshold. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the plea now raised by the tenant that eviction should have been sought under Section 11(8) of the Act, is a new one which was not raised before the Rent Control Court as well as before the Appellate Authority. The same therefore will have to be rejected on the threshold. Apart from the same, learned counsel submitted that the landlord is not in occupation of any of the vacant rooms now and he is not in actual use of the same. For applicability of Section 11(8) of the Act, the legal possession alone is not sufficient. Section 11(8) uses the word "occupation". Therefore, there should be actual user of the room for any purpose of the landlord. In this context, our attention was invited to various judgments of this Court explaining the legal position under Section 11(8) of the Act that there should be actual occupation by the landlord. It is therefore submitted that the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. The supermarket is proposed to be established in the ground floor and not in the upper floor and therefore any vacant room available in the upper floor cannot be utilised for that purpose also. 14. While inviting our attention to certain findings of the Rent Control Court, learned for the respondent submitted that none of those findings could be supported on the evidence and the pleadings and the Rent Control Court has made a wrong approach in the matter. Learned counsel also relied upon various judgments in support of his pleas. 15. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contention raised by the landlord that Section 11(8) is not attracted, cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage, since actually there is no evidence in this case as to the question whether the landlord is in actual occupation of the vacant rooms. Therefore, learned counsel vehemently pleaded for remanding the matter for considering the same. There has not been any detailed enquiry so far on the quality of occupation by the landlord, it is submitted. 16. We will now come to certain factual aspects which are required for examination of the arguments raised by learned counsel on either side. Therefore, learned counsel vehemently pleaded for remanding the matter for considering the same. There has not been any detailed enquiry so far on the quality of occupation by the landlord, it is submitted. 16. We will now come to certain factual aspects which are required for examination of the arguments raised by learned counsel on either side. In the eviction petition, the landlord has pleaded that the petition schedule room is a convenient one, it has got road access from the northern side through Palakkad - Edappal Main Road and access from the eastern side through the shutter passage. His elder son is not having any engagement and has studied upto 7th standard and had to stop his studies and he had to spend 10 years to reach upto 7th standard. After the landlord came back from Gulf countries, he compelled his elder son to appear for SSLC examination. It is clearly stated that his elder son is depending upon him. The developments in the locality and the suitability of the petition schedule room for doing business in super market, etc. are detailed in para 5 of the eviction petition. It was also pleaded in para 9 about the umpteen number of rooms available in the locality for shifting the business conducted by the tenant. 17. The tenant in the objections, contended that the schedule building is a three storied one. In the ground floor there are 9 rooms apart from a large hall having 1200 sq. ft. which is in the possession of the landlord. Room No.5 is also in his possession and both can be utilised profitably, as he will get access to the hall through room No.5. According to the tenant, in the first floor also there are certain rooms which are remaining vacant. The rooms in the second floor also can be utilised by the landlord for starting business. 18. What we notice from the objection is that no plea that Section 11 (8) alone is attracted, has been raised by the tenant therein. It is also not the contention of the tenant that the landlord is having any business being conducted in the portions of the same building and therefore the eviction petition can be considered only under Section 11(8) of the Act. It is also not the contention of the tenant that the landlord is having any business being conducted in the portions of the same building and therefore the eviction petition can be considered only under Section 11(8) of the Act. The attempt made is to show that there is no bonafide need under Section 11 (3) of the Act as the elder son is preparing to appear for the 10th standard examination. 19. We will refer to certain parts of the evidence of RW.1 and R.W1. In the proof affidavit also the case of RW.1 is that the petition schedule room is having access from two sides, viz. from northern and eastern sides and hence it will be advantageous for him to conduct a super market in the said room and the adjoining room. It is explained that his elder son is not interested in continuing his education and he is depending upon the landlord for his livelihood. The landlord produced certain documents to show that his elder son has studied upto 7th standard. They have been marked as Exts.A2 to A5. 20. With regard to the sufficiency of room No.5 it is explained that it is a staircase room, and the staircase is having only 2.5 ft. width. The upper portion of the building is proposed to be used as lodge and therefore the staircase room will have to be widened. The said room is to be developed as a reception and watchman's room and therefore a plan has been prepared for the same. It is also stated that the Panchayat has already approved the plan. Ext.A1 is the approved plan. He has explained that room No.5 cannot be used for the purpose of reaching the entrance on the southern side. In cross examination he has stated that after he purchased the building in October 2000 he started construction of upper floor and the third floor has not been completed. There is a wall to separate room No.5 with the hall and even at the time of purchase the hall was there. He has also stated that after filing eviction petition the room in which crown stationery was being conducted, was got vacated. There is no facility for conducting super market in the upper floor. 21. There is a wall to separate room No.5 with the hall and even at the time of purchase the hall was there. He has also stated that after filing eviction petition the room in which crown stationery was being conducted, was got vacated. There is no facility for conducting super market in the upper floor. 21. In the proof affidavit filed by R.W.I, he has reiterated that room No.5 along with the hall can be utilised by the landlord and he will get passage through room No.5. Apart from that, it is explained that after the room where Crown Stationery was functioning got evicted, now another business, viz. Devi Press is functioning there. It is therefore submitted that there are no bonafides in the matter. What is projected is that the landlord is having vacant possession of other rooms and without the petition schedule room getting evicted, a super market can be conducted. Various other factors regarding his business and the fact that he is depending mainly upon the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building, have also been explained. 22. In the cross examination, he has stated that even though he knows P. W.2 (the son of the landlord), he is not aware whether he has any other job or source of income. It is clear from the deposition of the tenant in cross examination that the room in the possession of the tenant is having entrance from northern as well as eastern side and there is no other room in the building which is having entrance from two sides, to reach the hall in the rear side. 23. There are two reports and plans filed by the Advocate Commissioner marked as Exts.C1 to C4. Going by the report Ext.C3, the width of the staircase is 2.5 ft. Room Nos.5 and 10 are vacant which are in the possession of the landlord. There are other rooms in the first floor which are kept for using as a lodge. There are two or three rooms remaining vacant there. In the second floor there are five rooms facing road and eight rooms on the rear side and all the rooms have been constructed with sanitation facility, to function as a lodge. There are other rooms in the first floor which are kept for using as a lodge. There are two or three rooms remaining vacant there. In the second floor there are five rooms facing road and eight rooms on the rear side and all the rooms have been constructed with sanitation facility, to function as a lodge. Going by the plan, Ext.C4, room No.5 in the possession of the landlord is having 3 x 5.4 m. and room No. 10 which is a larger room, is having 1000 sq. ft. area. The distance from Edappal Chungam Town to the petition schedule building is about 200 m. The sketch and plan produced along with the report gives the entire details. A reference to the sketch shows that the measurement of the petition schedule room is 3 x 5.4 m. which is having access from two sides, viz. from northern side and eastern side. The larger hall is on the southern side of the said room. 24. We will consider one of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one room in the ground floor which became vacant can be used for stationery business. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the respondent by referring to the plan is that the same is having access from eastern side but it does not touch the hall and behind the said room is part of the petition schedule room. From a reference to the plan it is clear that the said room actually does not touch the rear side hall and therefore no effective purpose will be served if the same is combined along with the large hall, as in between, the petition schedule room is there. 25. Similarly, as far as room No.5 is concerned, it is the staircase room. The staircase is having only 2.5 ft. width. Ext.A1 plan for widening the same, was approved by the local authority. Apart from the same, for the use of upper floors the same will have to be utilised to provide a reception and watchman's cabin there. It is therefore evident that as the landlord has shown special reasons for room No.5, the same will satisfy the requirement of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It cannot be said that the reason stated is an unacceptable one. 26. It is therefore evident that as the landlord has shown special reasons for room No.5, the same will satisfy the requirement of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It cannot be said that the reason stated is an unacceptable one. 26. Now we will come to the main argument regarding Section 11(8) of the Act. The first of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of a Division Bench of this Court in Arjunan v. Eranu ( 1991 (2) KLT 279 ). Therein, the ingredients of Section 11(8) of the Act have been explained. We will refer to the earlier decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Sivasubramanya Iyer v. S.H. Krishnaswamy (AIR 1981 Kerala 57) wherein it has been held as follows in para 4: "Where a landlord was occupying a portion of the whole building and his tenant was occupying the other portion and in such a case the landlord sought the additional accommodation for another member of his family dependent on him and what he sought was possession for the independent occupation of such member, it would be governed by sub-section (3) of Section 11 and if it was otherwise it would be a case falling within the ambit of Section 11(8). In short, if the landlord wants to accommodate persons dependent on him independently in the portion sought to be recovered from the tenant Section 11(3) will apply. But if he wants to take his dependents to his own residence and live with them, Section 11(8) will apply." There is an elaborate consideration of the relevant principles and the distinction between the ingredients of Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. 27. Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy ( 2006 (3) KLT 129 ) is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. It was held therein that the ingredients of Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act are distinct and different and they are mutually exclusive. It was explained that in an application under Section 11(8) of the Act, the landlord need not prove any special reasons as provided in the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 28. The same concept has been explained by another Division Bench in I.C.R. Trading (P) Ltd. v. Varghese ( 2009 (1) KLT 963 ). It was explained that in an application under Section 11(8) of the Act, the landlord need not prove any special reasons as provided in the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 28. The same concept has been explained by another Division Bench in I.C.R. Trading (P) Ltd. v. Varghese ( 2009 (1) KLT 963 ). The principles emerging from the above decisions is that when the landlord is in occupation of part of the same building and he need additional accommodation for person use, the ingredients of Section 11(8) are attracted and it will not be a case under Section 11(3) of the Act. The decisions are also to the effect that the personal use will include use of the dependants also. 29. In fact, one of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in this context is by relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Purushothaman v. Radhakrishnan ( 2004 (3) KLT 121 ) wherein it was held that "Section 11(8) can be invoked only when landlord is in possession of a portion of the building and he wants to expand his business for which he requires additional accommodation. It was also held that the claim under Section 11(8) would lie only if the requirement is additional, that is supplemental to the existing user by the landlord. The landlord cannot seek eviction for a purpose which is alien to his existing state of affairs. Additional requirement must be supplementary, so as to augment his existing need. The nature of additional requirement should have some nexus with the existing need." 30. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above decision has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Moidootty Haji v. Abdul Jaleel ( 2007 (4) KLT 15 ) where the Full Bench was of the view that it cannot be said that Section 11(8) is not attracted when the business proposed to be conducted in the additional accommodation sought to be gained is different from the business which the landlords at present carry on in a part of the building. We need not elaborate the question since, in this case we are of the view that Section 11 (8) is not attracted. 31. We need not elaborate the question since, in this case we are of the view that Section 11 (8) is not attracted. 31. The question herein is whether the ingredients under Section 11 (8) are attracted at all, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that for applicability of Section 11(8) of the Act, there should be occupation by the landlord of certain parts in the same building and he should be in actual user of the same. A Division Bench of this Court in Retnakaran v. Rosy ( 2004 (3) KLT 154 ) has held that mere possession is not sufficient to attract Section 11(8) of the Act. It was held as follows in para 4: "The Section uses the expression "occupying" in contradistinction to "possession". In other words, landlord must be occupying a part of the building of which tenanted premises is also a part. The word occupy means, to take possession of, to hold or have in possession to keep possession of etc. The word occupy also means engage, hold, cohabit etc. Mere possession of the premises by the landlord would not be sufficient to attract S.ll(8). Landlord's occupation may be residential or non-residential. Landlord could retain possession of a building without occupying. The test is that in the case of a residential building he .must really occupy the building for his residence and in the case of non-residential building he must occupy for non-residential purposes" 32. In an earlier decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Muhammed v. Abdul Rahiman ( 1983 KLT 874 ) the distinction between 'occupation' and 'possession' has been explained and it was held that unless the landlord is occupying part of the building, he will not be entitled to invoke Section 11(8) of the Act to evict the tenant occupying the remaining part of the building. The said dictum was relied upon by another learned Single Judge in Shamsudeen v. The District Court, Quilon (ILR 1998 (1) Ker. 620) in para 7. To the same effect is the decision of another learned Single Judge in Narayanan v. Vasudevan ( 1985 KLT 420 ). 33. The said dictum was relied upon by another learned Single Judge in Shamsudeen v. The District Court, Quilon (ILR 1998 (1) Ker. 620) in para 7. To the same effect is the decision of another learned Single Judge in Narayanan v. Vasudevan ( 1985 KLT 420 ). 33. In a recent decision of this Court in Nalini v. Abraham ( 2012 (3) KLT 32 ) one of us (A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.) speaking for the Division Bench, after considering the very same issue, held that occupation of part of the building adjacent to the tenanted premises by the landlord is the basis of claiming eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. The legal position was explained in para 12 thus: "It is true that the rigor of establishing bona fides is lesser in a petition under S.11(8) compared to the one under S.11(3). However the claim for additional accommodation under S.11(8) should be bona fide and it is the duty of the Court to find out whether the need for additional accommodation is bona fide. 'Occupation' of part of the building adjacent to the tenanted premises by the landlord is the basis of claiming eviction under S.11(8) of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom has chosen the word 'occupation' instead of 'possession' to curtail unbridled demands for eviction by landlords and hence a mere juridical possession of a part adjacent to the tenanted premises without actual occupation will not justify a claim under S.11(8). Though the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how the additional accommodation has to be used by the landlord, the factors which may have a bearing on the bona fides are to be evaluated by the court in the correct perspective." Therefore, mere possession of part of the building adjacent to the tenanted premises without actual occupation and user will not justify a claim for eviction under Section 11 (8) of the Act. 34. If we apply the same to the facts of this case, it can be seen that there is no case for the tenant in the objection: or in evidence that the landlord is using already part of the building and therefore the requirement is not under Section 11(3) but it can only be under; Section 11(8) of the Act. 34. If we apply the same to the facts of this case, it can be seen that there is no case for the tenant in the objection: or in evidence that the landlord is using already part of the building and therefore the requirement is not under Section 11(3) but it can only be under; Section 11(8) of the Act. Both the reports of the Commissioners will not show that the landlord is actually using the part of the building for any of his purposes and the rooms are remaining as vacant itself and no activity has been noted in any of such rooms. As rightly pointed out by Shri T. Sethumadhavan, learned counsel for the respondent, as the tenant has no such case before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority this Court need not go into such questions. We find much force in the above contention. Even in the evidence as R.W.1, the tenant has no case that the landlord is in actual user of any of the vacant rooms in the ground floor or in the upper floor. There is no case that he is having any business. As far as upper floor rooms are concerned, the landlord has explained that the super market is proposed to be located only on the ground floor. In the first floor and second floor many rooms are constructed with sanitary facilities, to be given the same on rent as lodging rooms. Therefore, at any stretch the same will not advance the case of the petitioner that only Section 11(8) of the Act is attracted on the facts of this case. Therefore, we reject the said contention. 35. The next aspect is regarding the bonafide need pleaded by the landlord. One of the aspects pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the notice issued to the tenant, the purpose has not been shown. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not the law that an application under Section 11(3) of the Act should be preceded by a notice itself. In fact, the matter is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of this Court in Krishnan Nair v. Mohammed ( 2004 (2) KLT 546 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. In fact, the matter is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of this Court in Krishnan Nair v. Mohammed ( 2004 (2) KLT 546 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therein, it was held that sending of notice is not a pre condition for filing application under Section 11(3) of the Acr The legal position has been explained thus in para 2: "Legislature has contemplated issuance of prior notice in seeking eviction under S.11(4)(i) and S.11(2)(b) of the Act. Sending of notice is not a pre-condition for filing application under S.11(3) or under S.11(4)(ii). Proviso to S.11(4)(i) states that application under that Section shall be made only after sending a registered notice to the tenant. Landlord however could file application under S.11(3) and also under S.11(4)(ii) for eviction without sending any prior notice. Landlord in the instant case when convinced that tenant is using the building in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility either materially or permanently had sent a notice though not a pre-condition. We are therefore in agreement with the Rent Control Court that failure to mention the bona fide need in notice issued under S.11(4)(ii) would not vitiate a claim under S. 11(3)." We agree with the same and hence the said plea is rejected. 36. Then, the next aspect is whether during the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord attempted to sell the petition schedule property. The matter did not attain a finality, as is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. It is stated that even though there was an agreement, that did not fructify and there is no longer a proposal to sell the property. Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it indicates the falsity of the claim and it really affects the bonafide need. Relying upon two Division Bench decisions of this Court, Shri Sethumadhavan submitted that such proposals cannot have any impact on the plea of bonafides. The very same aspects have been considered in Manu v. Bhanumathy ( 2004 (1) KLT 212 ) and Balan v. Bijina ( 2004 (3) KLT 180 ). 37. In the first of the above decisions, viz. Manu's case ( 2004 (1) KLT 212 ) the landlady had sold one room which fell vacant, to the tenant. The very same aspects have been considered in Manu v. Bhanumathy ( 2004 (1) KLT 212 ) and Balan v. Bijina ( 2004 (3) KLT 180 ). 37. In the first of the above decisions, viz. Manu's case ( 2004 (1) KLT 212 ) the landlady had sold one room which fell vacant, to the tenant. It was held in para 3, as follows: "The mere fact that landlady sold one of the rooms fell vacant to the tenant does not mean that there is no bonafides in the plea for evicting another tenant. Selling away of another tenanted room may be due to various reasons. Landlady may not be getting sufficient rent from the tenanted premises. Landlady may also be in need of money for various purposes including marriage of her daughter, for discharging the liabilities and may also be enamoured of the delay in getting the tenant evicted. Landlord may also choose a tenant who is paying lesser rent for eviction, for bonafide own occupation. Mere fact that one of the tenanted buildings was sold to the tenant while the bonafide need existed does not mean that there is no bonafide in the need urged for evicting another tenanted premises. Even if the above facts were proved the claim under S.l 1(3) cannot be defeated if the plea is bonafide." In Balan's case ( 2004 (3) KLT 180 ) also a similar view has been taken, as evident from para 6 which we extract hereunder: "During the pendency of the rent control proceedings if tenant makes an attractive offer so as to subdue the bonafide need the Rent Control Petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the landlady was also desirous of selling away the tenanted premises. The delay in disposal of the rent control proceedings, uncertainty in conduct of business and many other factors might have influenced the mind of the landlady while an attractive offer was made. Landlady may also in a given case sell away the tenanted premises and start business elsewhere with the amounts received. The delay in disposal of the rent control proceedings, uncertainty in conduct of business and many other factors might have influenced the mind of the landlady while an attractive offer was made. Landlady may also in a given case sell away the tenanted premises and start business elsewhere with the amounts received. Rent Control Court took the view that since attempts were made by the landlady to sell away the property during the pendency of the proceedings to the tenant it would be sufficient to hold that there is no bona fides in the plea." We do not find much force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 38. Vehement attack is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the findings by the Appellate Authority. In fact, a reference to the order passed by the Rent Control Court shows that in para 9 it was held that "P.W.2 being his son is living with the landlord. The son is undisputably a dependant of the landlord. So, for the purpose of trading and to get possession of the room, he has to depend on his father, the landlord herein." It was also observed that "actually no serious dispute is raised from the side of the tenant challenging the dependancy of P.W.2, for whose behalf eviction of tenant is sought for." 39. The Rent Control Court found fault with the landlord on the plea of Section 11(3), in para 12 by stating that in the notices Exts.B1 and B2, the bona fide need for eviction has not been stated. We find that the same cannot be a ground to deny eviction as it is not the requirement of the law. Therefore, the finding on the said point was rightly reversed by the Appellate Authority. In fact, the Rent Control Court in para 14 rejected the plea by the tenant that actually the relief sought for by the landlord is only under Section 11(3) and not under Section 11(8) of the Act. In fact, one aspect that has gone against the landlord by the Rent Control Court is that in evidence he has stated that if the petition schedule room is evicted, he would get another passage to the spacious room already in his possession. In fact, one aspect that has gone against the landlord by the Rent Control Court is that in evidence he has stated that if the petition schedule room is evicted, he would get another passage to the spacious room already in his possession. It is stated that this will amount to a modification of the plea raised by the landlord in the petition for eviction wherein it was stated that "if the petition schedule room occupied by the tenant is evicted, he would get additional space necessary for the proposed supermarket business." The appellate Authority has reversed the finding by holding that the said approach is not correct. In fact, we have also seen that the landlord has explained the importance of getting possession of the petition schedule room since it has got access through two sides. The said room, if evicted, can be utilised along with the larger hall, for a supermarket and he will get access from two sides to the supermarket. Therefore, the mention about the passage is because of the fact that the said room is having opening towards northern public road as well as eastern side through a shutter. Therefore, it is not a case for getting passage alone as such, that the room is required and the said finding by the Rent Control Court could not have been sustained and was rightly reversed. The Rent Control Court again has considered the availability of room No.5 as one which attracts the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The above point was also rightly reversed by the Appellate Authority. We have also seen that room No.5 is a staircase room and for widening the staircase room, already the plan has been approved. Therefore, e availability of room No.5 had no impact on the requirement of the landlord. 40. There is detailed discussion of the entire evidence by the Appellate Authority. It was held that the need of P. W.2,'s son whose desire to have a supermarket, cannot be rejected as without any bonafides, as other materials to show the lack of bonafides are absent. It is in evidence that P.W.2 has studied only upto 7th standard and his attempt to pass 10th standard also failed. Therefore, as he is a dependant on the landlord and is not having any avocation in life, the bonafide need is clearly established. It is in evidence that P.W.2 has studied only upto 7th standard and his attempt to pass 10th standard also failed. Therefore, as he is a dependant on the landlord and is not having any avocation in life, the bonafide need is clearly established. That the landlord is in vacant possession of a larger room having 1200 sq. ft., is not disputed. 41. Then, the question is whether the requirement of the petition schedule room is a genuine need or not. We have already discussed the pleadings and evidence in the case, in the light of the vehement argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 13 of the judgment the Appellate Authority found that room No.5 along with the larger room, cannot be utilised and the same is proposed for the staircase room. 42. The other aspect is regarding the room wherein Crown Stationery was being conducted. That we have already referred to and the Appellate Authority also clearly found that, the same will not suffice to the requirement of the landlord. 43. Then what remains is the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3) and the burden is upon the tenant to prove that he is entitled to get the benefit of the two limbs of the second proviso. It was found by the Appellate Authority that no evidence was adduced by the tenant to show the income derived by him from the petition schedule premises. He has not stated the approximate average income from the business. Regarding the availability of other vacant suitable rooms in the locality, the Appellate Authority relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and who has stated about the other vacant buildings, relying upon the Commissioner's report. The plea raised by the tenant is that available rooms are not within his reach. The Rent Control Court also has found against the tenant on this plea. 44. Accordingly, we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the revision petition. We grant time upto 31.1.2014 to the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises on the following conditions: (i) The entire arrears of rent as on today will be paid within one month and receipt will be produced before the Execution Court. 44. Accordingly, we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the revision petition. We grant time upto 31.1.2014 to the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises on the following conditions: (i) The entire arrears of rent as on today will be paid within one month and receipt will be produced before the Execution Court. (ii) An affidavit will be filed by the petitioner before the Execution Court within one month from today, undertaking to vacate the premises within the time stipulated by this Court. (iii) The petitioner will continue to pay at the same monthly rate for the use and occupation of the building till vacant peaceful possession is handed over to the respondents; If the above conditions are not satisfied, the petitioner will not get the benefit of this order. No costs.