The main legal point established in the judgment is that the need for reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act must be genuine and bonafide, and that no plan is required for reconstruction as per local regulations.

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

Both the revisions were filed by the respective tenants who are the respondents in R.C.P. Nos. 48 and 46 of 1993. The respondents herein filed the eviction petitions under S.11(2) and 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller dismissed the petitions. The order of dismissal was reversed by the Appellate Authority and eviction was ordered. Against the order of the Appellate Authority these two revisions were filed by the tenant.

2. The case of the landlord in the eviction petitions was that the scheduled buildings are two of the four rooms in a line building situated in Kadirur town, on the side of Tellicherry- Koothuparamba road, that the building is an old one and the area in question is a fast developing area, that new buildings have come up in the near vicinity and that the building being an old one, it requires reconstruction.

3. The eviction petition was opposed by the tenants contending that the buildings are not in a dilapidated condition and has not sustained any damages and that the eviction petitions do not disclose what exactly were the damages caused to the building and that the plan and licence required for reconstruction were not produced. Both the Rent Control Petitions were tried together and evidence was recorded jointly. t A Commissioner was'also appointed who visited the property twice and filed reports which are marked as Exts. Cl and C2. The Rent Controller found that the alleged need for reconstruction is not bonafide. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller.

4. Mr. Gracious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the petitioners placed the following submissions for our consideration:

(1) There was no sufficient pleadings and materials to support the plea for eviction under S.11(4)(iv).

(2) The need put forward is not genuine or bonafide.

(3) The finding of the Appellate Authority that it is totally unnecessary to produce any plan is erroneous.

(4) The non-examination of the landlady in tin's case is fatal.

5. Learned counsel for the landlady reiterated his submissions made before the Appellate Authority and submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority is unassailable and that the Appellate Authority has passed the order of eviction on a consideration of the evidence let in by both sides.

6. We have gone through the pleadings and also the judgment/order rendered by the authorities below as well as the evidence placed on record. We are unable to countenance the contentions of the learned counsel for revision petitioner. As regards the first contention, we are of the view that the pleadings are more than sufficient to support the claim for eviction under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act. In this case, in both the petitions, it is specifically averred that the building is an old tiled one which requires reconstruction. It is also averred that the area is a fast developing area and new buildings have come up in the near vicinity. It is further stated that the land lady is having necessary plan and the ability to rebuild. There is no denial of the averments that the area is a fast developing one and that after reconstruction the landlady can put the building to a more profitable use. The Commissioner has also noted the damages in the building. He has noted certain cracks in the building and noted that some of the rafters are broken. He also noted damages to the rooms in the area now occupied by the landlord. It is seen from the report that in certain places the tiles are missing and leakage of rain water is also seen and there are cracks on the walls also. The evidence let in this case would show that the building is an old one and it requires reconstruction. The finding of the Appellate Authority on this point is correct and, therefore, no interference is called for. As regards point No. 2 we hold that the need put forward by the landlady is genuine and bonafide. The Rent Controller, in his order, found fault with-the land