The physical condition of the building is fundamental in determining the need for reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

The tenant against whom an order of eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as' the act) was passed by the Rent Control Court which has been confirmed by the appellate authority is the revision petitioner. The landlady purchased two shop rooms in a big building having 9 shop rooms. In one of the shop rooms, the landlady was also doing some business. She purchased 3 shop rooms including the 2 rooms occupied by the revision petitioners in this case and C.R.P. No. 446/91.

2. The landlady filed an application under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. S.11(4)(iv) of the Act provides thus:-

"if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bonafide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction".

The landlady in the eviction petition only said that the building needs reconstruction. The revision petitioner herein objected the petition stating that the landlady does not require the building for the purpose of reconstruction and the ground alleged is only a ruse for getting eviction of the petitioner. Of course, the tenant submitted that he was in occupation of the building from 1937 onwards, paying a rent of Rs. 10/- per month.

3. It is not disputed that the building is in a very commercially important locality in Tripunithura Municipality. The case of the landlady is that the locality has improved very much and there arc modern buildings and the building in question is an old building and if the building is reconstructed, it will be economically profitable to the landlady. The Rent Control Court considered the evidence in the case and held that the landlady has established the case under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. The tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. Now the tenant has come up in revision before this Court.

4. Before considering the evidence in this case, we must note the fact that the jurisdiction we arc exercising in this Civil Revision Petition is a jurisdiction granted by the statute under S.20ofthcAct. S.20 of the Act of course allows this Court to examine the evidence to satisfy whether the orders passed by the lower authorities did not suffer from the vice of illegality, irregularity and impropriety. In considering this aspect of the matter, this Court had occasion to say that the revisional court has got the power to examine the evidence. But the examination should not be are-appraisal of the evidence for the purpose of recording an independent finding, but the re-appraisal of the evidence should he for the purpose of testing whether the order and judgment of the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority are not vitiated by any of the vices stated in S.20 of the Act.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlady has not filed a proper application for eviction on the ground of re-construction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. He submitted that the necessary averments attracting the ground under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act have not been made in the pleadings. He emphasised that it is not a defective pleading, but it is a case of lack of pleading. Of course, the landlady has said that the building needs reconstruction and the eviction is sought under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. S.11(4) (iv) of the Act makes it clear that the building should be in such a condition that it needs reconstruction. Counsel submitted that the statement in the petition that the building needs reconstruction alone without stating that the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction is not adequate for the purpose of eviction on the ground of reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Certainly, the pleading would have given mo re details. But it cannot be said that there is n