The destruction of the building by the Municipal authorities terminated the lease, and the tenant could not claim any leasehold interest on the new building constructed by the landlords.

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Construction. Petitioner challenges Exhibit PS order passed by the revisional authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

2. Respondents 1 to 4 were the owners of a building occupied by the petitioner. The building consisted of a row of rooms. The western-most room of that building was leased out to the petitioner. Landlords initiated proceedings under the Act as R.CO.P.12/1983 for recovering the shop room invoking the provisions contained in S.11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Exhibit P1 is the petition filed before the Rent Control Court. The property schedule to that petition was the western-most room of a building with 5 rooms facing Thodupuzha - Velliamaltam Road, bearing Door No. 197 of Ward XXI of Thodupuzha Municipality.

3. While proceedings under the Act were pending, Municipal authorities issued notice under S.250(2) of the Kerala Municipalities Act requiring the occupants and the owners to demolish the building to prevent danger to human lives, since the building was in a dilapidated condition. On receipt of the notice from the Municipal authorities, petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. 8590/1985 inter-alia praying for direction to the Municipal authorities to forbear from demolishing the building. Thodupuzha Municipality and the landlords were made respondents in that petition. Municipality entered appearance. No notice of the petition was sent to the landlords. When that petition came up for admission on 3-10-1985, this Court disposed of the same with the following observations:-

"The apprehension of the petitioner that the demolition of the building without waiting for the disposal of R.C. OP. 12 of 1983 is likely to affect his plea for opting for allotment of an equal space in the reconstructed building has to be met by appropriate directions in that regard. It is elementary that the petitioner is entitled to raise a plea that he shall be entitled to exercise his option for allotment of equal space in the reconstructed building. That entitlement of the tenant cannot be defeated by proceedings initiated under a different statute. It is made clear that the action taken by the Municipality for demolition of the building due to the alleged state of utter disrepair of the building will not in any manner affect the right of the petitioner as a tenant to claim that he is entitled for allotment of equal space in the reconstructed building if after the demolition of the building, the landlord reconstructs the same".

Thereafter, landlords did not press R.C.O.P.12/1983 and, the Rent Control Court dismissed it as not pressed. Before that petition was dismissed as not pressed, petitioner herein filed LA. 2159/1985 in R.C.OP.12/1983 praying for issuing necessary orders protecting the rights of the petitioner to have first option to have an equivalent space of accommodation in the reconstructed building. That application was also dismissed by the Rent Control Court. Petitioner challenged the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing R.C.O.P.12/1983 in appeal before the appellate authority. That authority by Exhibit P7 order, while confirming the order of dismissal of the main petition, directed the landlords to reconstruct the building within one year and to allot suitable accommodation for the tenants in the reconstructed building on payment of fair rent. Landlords questioned the decision of the appellate authority by preferring revision R.C.R.P.2/1957 before the District Court. The learned District Judge allowed that revision petition,

4. Main reasons relied on by the revisional court for allowing the revision petition preferred by the landlords are that the eviction of the present petitioner was sought not only under S.11(4)(iv), but also under S.11(4)(iii) on the ground that he is having in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for the requirement in the same town and that landlords recove