The main legal point established in the judgment is that the satisfaction of the authority on relevant materials is the basis for an eviction order, and subsequent developments making plan and licence necessary pre-requisites for reconstruction cannot nullify the order or make it inexecutable.

First respondent is the landlord of a building, having six rooms let out to six tenants. He filed six rent control petitions against them for eviction. Though the rent control court ordered eviction on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation and bona fide need for re-construction, appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the order only on the latter ground. Petitions were filed in 1967, but final orders in revisions were only in 1981. In 1989, first respondent filed six execution petitions for getting eviction. Petitions were contested on various grounds. All those grounds were rejected and delivery was ordered, which was confirmed in revision.

2. In these original petitions filed under Art.227 of the Constitution, one of the grounds raised before the execution court and revisional authority alone was canvassed.

3. In 1990, consequent on the formation of Pathanamthitta district, the area, where the building stands, became a municipality. Till then, it was a panchayat area and a licence for re-construction was not necessary. Plan of the proposed building alone was, therefore, produced in the rent control proceedings and not the licence. Kerala Building Rules, 1984, framed under S.344 read with S.222 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, became applicable. Since eviction was ordered without a licence being obtained and produced, it was contended that the order became in executable and it must be deemed to have been statutorily discharged within the meaning of S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.14 of the Rent Control Act. Execution court and the revisional court rejected this contention.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to support this contention relying on the decisions in Karunakaran and others v. Janaki Amma and others (1987 (2) KLT 1010) and Vidya Sagar v. Sudesh Kumari and others (AIR 1975 S.C. 2295). First decision dealt with a decree which imposed mutual obligations and said that when one is conditional on the performance of the other, performance will not be ordered, unless the party seeking execution not only offers to perform his part, but also satisfies the execution court that he is in a position to do so when objection is raised. Here, we are not concerned with mutual obligations by the order which are conditional. Latter decision only considered a pre-emption decree, which because inexcusable by a subsequent legislation. No such contingency occurred in this case.

5. Here, only requirement for ordering eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act, for brevity) is the satisfaction of the court on the pleadings and evidence that the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and the landlord bona fide requires to re-construct the same. For satisfaction of the bona fide requirement, Court must be shown that he has the plan and licence, if they required for re-construction. Other satisfactions are that he has the ability to re-build and the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. All these satisfactions are insisted only to ensure that the landlord bona fide requires to reconstruct the building and he is. desirous, willing and capable of doing so. Plan and licence need be shown for such satisfaction only if they are legally required for the reconstruction. That is clear from the words "if any required". In this case, plan and licence were not required for the reconstruction. Yet, plan was produced because landlord him self could have prepared and produced it without any order from any source. Licence could not be produced because it was unnecessary and there was no provision for issuing or getting it.

6. Even without a plan and licence, when they are not required, rent control authorities could have had the satisfaction and ordered eviction. That is because basis of the order is not the plan and licence, but satisfaction of the authority on relevant materials. When eviction was ordered on that satisfaction, that order c