Personal use under rent control law includes a new business, but eviction relief still depends on comparative hardship.

Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is construed broadly: "personal use" for additional accommodation in a non-residential building is not confined to expansion of an existing business and may extend to a new business chosen by the landlord. The landlord's bona fide need remains the core requirement, but relief under Section 11(8) cannot be granted unless the Rent Control Court also records a finding on comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(10), weighing the tenant's hardship against the landlord's advantage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "personal use" in Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is confined in the case of a non-residential building to expansion of the landlord's existing business, or extends to a new business chosen by the landlord; (ii) whether relief under Section 11(8) can be granted without recording a finding on comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "personal use" in Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is confined in the case of a non-residential building to expansion of the landlord's existing business, or extends to a new business chosen by the landlord.

Analysis: The expression "additional accommodation for his personal use" was construed according to its natural and ordinary meaning. The provision contains no language limiting personal use, in the case of a non-residential building, to enlargement of an existing trade. The landlord's bona fide need for additional accommodation is the relevant statutory requirement, and the choice of how that accommodation is to be used rests with the landlord. Section 11(8) is broader than Section 11(3), and its scope is not confined to the business already being carried on.

Conclusion: The expression "personal use" under Section 11(8) is not restricted to expansion of an existing business; it includes use for a new business chosen by the landlord. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether relief under Section 11(8) can be granted without recording a finding on comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 11(10) makes comparative hardship an additional condition for granting relief under Section 11(8). Even if bona fide requirement for additional accommodation is established, the Rent Control Court must still consider whether the hardship to the tenant outweighs the advantage to the landlord. Since the High Court proceeded without deciding this aspect, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: A finding on comparative hardship is necessary before relief under Section 11(8) can be granted. This issue is decided in favour of the respondent in principle, but the case was remitted for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The interpretation of Section 11(8) was held to be broad, but the grant of eviction relief remained subject to comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(10); the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter sent back for fresh disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim for additional accommodation under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, "personal use" is not confined to expansion of an existing business, and relief cannot be granted unless the statutory requirement of comparative hardship is also satisfied.

---