M M MOIDOOTTY HAJI Vs. ABDUL JELEEL HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Section 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') mandates that for the purpose of seeking eviction on the need for additional accommodation, need alleged ought to be for the purpose of exten-sion of the same type of business that is carried on in the already occupied portion by the landlord is the question referred to this Full Bench for answer. A division bench of this Court referred the above question doubting the ratio of the decision in purushothaman v. Radhakrishnan (2004 (3) KLT 121 : (2004 AIHC 4011). In the above case, it was held as follows :

(2.) Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act specifically provides as follows :

(3.) In Indian Saree House v. Radha-lakshmy (2006 (3) KLT 129) , it was observed as follows at paragraph 14 : the business that is proposed to be conducted in the portion of the building occupied by the tenants is not the same business which petitioners 4 and 5 now conduct in the portions of the building in their occupation. The case put forward by the landlords in the Rent Control Petition is this :