Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The landlords are the revision petitioners. Their application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement of reconstruction, S.11(4) (iv) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 (for short, the Rent Control Act), was allowed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed in appeal, in revision and ultimately in a proceeding under Art.227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the tenant. The landlords did not carry out reconstruction within the time specified in the eviction order. The tenant took another building in the neighbourhood on lease paying a much higher rent. Ultimately the landlords completed the reconstruction of the while building, but did not induct the tenant into the building. The tenant filed two separate I.As, I.A. No. 2616 of 1999 for induction of the tenant into possession of the reconstructed building and I.A.No. 420 of 1996 seeking award of damages under the second proviso to S.11(4)(iv).

2. The Rent Control Court allowed the application for reinduction. But the other application for award of damages was not allowed by that court which took the view that the landlords were not willfully negligent in the matter of carrying out reconstruction and that the delay had been occasioned on account of reasons beyond the landlords' control.

3. The tenant preferred appeal as R.C. A.No.80 of 2002 against the order refusing damages while the landlords preferred appeal as R.C.A. No.84 of 2002 against the order directing reinduction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered both the appeals together and disposed them of by a common judgment. Allowing the tenant's appeal, the Appellate Authority found that the delay caused in the matter of carrying out the reconstruction of the building till February, 1996 was attributable to reasons beyond the control of the landlords and that the delay thereafter was liable to be accounted for by the landlords. Accordingly damages at the rale of Rs.3425 per mensem, a sum equal to the excess rent which the tenant paid for the building he had taken on lease, was awarded In favour of the tenant. The landlords' appeal was also partly allowed and the order of the Rent Control Court was modified so as to allow reinduction specifically in respect of an area ear-marked in the approved plan-a two shutter portion in the ground floor having a total carpet area of 320 sq. feet - thereby reducing the area directed by the Rent Control Court to be delivered over to the tenant. Both the present revision are filed by the landlords and it appears that the tenant has no grievance regarding the area ordered to be reallotted.

4. Shri T.R.Raman Pillai, Senior Advocate addressed us on behalf of the revision petitioners-landlords while Shri T.K.M.Unnkhan, Advocate addressed us on behalf of the tenant. The lower court records are available for our perusal

5. Shri T.R. Raman Pillai submitted that both the I.As., LA Nos. 2616 of 1999 and 420 of 1996, are not maintainable in law in as much as they are preferred by a partnership firm by name M/s. S. Koder which was not a party to the rent control proceedings even. Inviting our attention to the trial records of the case including the rent control petition and the common order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under S.I 1(4)(iv) in the present rent control petition and connected R.C.P.Nos. 83,85 and 90 of 1985, counsel submitted that the respondent in the present rent control petition, i.e. R.C.P.No. 87 of 1985, was an individual by name S. Koder and not any partnership by name M/s. S.Koder, the petitioner in the two I.As. Counsel drew our attention to Ext.B 1 judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 14662 of 1992, an original petition under Art.227 which was filed impugning the orders of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Appellate Authority (then Sub Judge) and the Rent Control Revisional Court (then District Judge). Our attention was drawn specifically to para.4 of the judgment wherein a