The Act does not contemplate rejection of the eviction petition on the ground of license expiration, and enforcement of eviction orders for reconstruction is subject to the landlord producing a renewed or new license.

Shamsuddin, J.

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of Rent Control Petitions filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the tenants from the respective petition scheduled premises under Ss.11(2) and 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. All the Rent Control Petitions were tried jointly and a common judgment was rendered by the Rent Control Court allowing eviction both under S.11(2) and S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. The appeals filed by the respective tenants were dismissed by the Rent Control appellate Authority confirming the orders passed by the Rent Control Court. These revision petitions have been filed by the respective tenants.

2. Both the Rent Control Court and the appellate Authority found that the tenants have committed default in payment of rent and that the building needs reconstruction and the landlord bona fide required to reconstruct the same. In view of the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the counsel for the petitioners strained very much to convince us that the findings of the courts below are not supported by any legal evidence, but we are satisfied that the above findings are supported by evidence and that the orders do not suffer from any infirmity. We, therefore, affirm the said findings.

3. Relying on a new document, which is produced along with the revision petitions (Order No. PW2-C.A. 337/82-83 dated 29-12-1990 of Municipal Commissioner, Thodupuzha), learned counsel for petitioners contended that the impugned orders are liable to beset aside in view of the provisions contained in S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. By the aforesaid order, the Commissioner of Thodupuzha Municipality declined to renew the licence granted to "the landlord to reconstruct the building.

4. Clause (4) of sub-section (iv) of S.11 lays down that an order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement to reconstruct the building can be ordered, if only that the landlord has the plan and licence and ability to rebuild. The contention of the learned counsel is that though initially the petitioner had licence from the Municipality and an approved plan, as the period of licence granted by the Municipality expired and by order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 29-12-1990 the Commissioner declined to renew the licence, the impugned orders allowing eviction for reconstruction are liable to be set aside.

5. Shri. M.V. Joseph, who appeared for the landlord, on the other hand, contended that this ground has not been raised by the landlord before the appellate Authority, and in the circumstances, the petitioners should not be permitted to raise such a contention for the first time in revision. He also submitted that against the order passed by the Commissioner, the landlord has filed an original petition and this court has stayed the operation of the impugned order. The stay granted by this court will not enable the landlord to start the construction as there is no current licence issued by the Municipal Commissioner to start construction.

6. It is not disputed that at the time when the Rent Control Petitions were filed, the landlord had obtained the licence for reconstruction and an approved plan. However, the landlord could not start reconstruction, since the tenants did not voluntarily surrender the premises for enabling the landlord to start reconstruction, and the landlord had to resort to proceedings under S.11 of the Act for eviction of the tenants for the purpose of reconstruction. In the course of proceedings, the tenants raised various objections. Those objections were overruled by the Rent Control Court which was upheld by the appellate Authority. By the time, the landlord obtained orders from Rent Control Court and the appellate Authority, the time granted by the Municipality for reconstruction expired. The landlord applied for renewal of licence, but the Commissioner of Municipality passed the above order declining renewal