The executing court was right in entertaining the application by the tenant under S.14 of the Act for getting back possession of the reconstructed building, and the tenant had not forfeited his right to have the reconstructed building allotted to him on fair rent.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The petitioner, a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called, the Act, was ordered to he evicted under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. While ordering eviction, the Rent Control Appellate Authority had also indicated the right of the tenant to have the statutory option of having the re-constructed building let out to him on fair rent. The order provided for surrender of the building by the tenant within a time fixed and for reconstruction to be effected by the landlord. The tenant did not comply with the direction in the order but compelled the landlord to initiate proceedings in execution for getting possession of the building. After reconstruction, according to the tenant, the building was not let out to him by the landlord. The tenant thereupon moved the executing court for getting possession of the reconstruction building from the landlord. An objection was raised on behalf of the landlord that the right available to the tenant to have the re-constructed building let out to him on fair rent is not executable under S.14 of the Act. The executing court overruled that contention by finding that since there was an order by the revisional authority directing the tenant to surrender the building and recognising his right to get back the reconstructed building and since S.14 of the Act provided for execution of every order passed under S.11 of the Actor in an appeal under S.18 of the Act or in a revision under S.20 of the Act, the executing court has the power. Thus finding that the execution petition is maintainable, the executing court found that the landlord was bound to make an offer to the tenant to let out the re-constructed building on fair rent and since the landlord had failed to act in terms of the order for eviction, an order was liable to be issued directing the landlord to deliver to the tenant the re-constructed building in terms of the order for eviction. The executing court thus ordered delivery in

favour of the tenant. The landlord filed a revision under the proviso to S.14 of the Act before the District Court. The District Court held that the order for eviction had provided that the tenant was to surrender the building in his possession within the time stipulated and had compelled the landlord to execute the order for eviction is his favour and since the tenant had not himself complied with the directions i n the order for eviction he had lost his right to have the reconstructed building let out to him on fair rent. Thus, the District Court reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application for delivery of possession made by the tenant. Since this Court has held that no further revision will lie against the order of the District Court exercising power under the proviso to S.14 of the Act, the tenant has approached this court with this Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. In this case, the order for eviction was executed and the landlord obtained possession. The landlord also re-constructed the building. The proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Rent Control Court to issue the necessary directions to compel the landlord to reconstruct the building and in case of failure by the landlord to reconstruct the building to issue appropriate directions to put the tenant back in possession of the building or to award damages. The proviso also specifies that the tenant who is evicted would have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay the fair rent. This right of the tenant has been recognised already by the Rent Control Court (here of course, the appellate authority) in the order which provided for reconstruction of the building and the obligation of the landlord to give first option to the tenant to occupy the building on fair rent. This is therefore, not a case where any direction was called for in terms of the provi