The physical condition of the building is fundamental in determining the need for reconstruction, and severe restrictions are imposed on the landlord's right to reconstruct in the interests of the tenants.

1. Tenants in Rent Control proceedings are the petitioners, and the common respondent, the landlord. The landlord has three buildings in Koorkancherry Panchayat, on the outskirts of Trichur Town, occupied by eleven different tenants. The Rent Control Court allowed her petitions for evicting them on the ground of bona fide requirement to reconstruct, and the decision was upheld by the appellate authority and by the District Court Eight of the tenants have now come up in revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. In proceedings under sub-section 4 (iv) of S.11 of Act 2 of 1965, the first thing to be looked into by a court is the condition of the building (or buildings). If the condition is such that it needs reconstruction, the next question will be about the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement. The court has also to satisfy itself that the plan and the licence, if required, are there, that the landlord has the ability to rebuild and that reconstruction is not put forward as a pretext. Severe restrictions are thus imposed on the right of a landlord to reconstruct, in the interests of the tenants; and the three provisos add to their rigour. Still the findings regarding the condition of the building, the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement and the other things specified in the statute are findings of fact. The Rent Control Court and the appellate authority are primarily responsible for such findings, the revisional power of the District Court under S.20 being essentially supervisory, to be exercised in those rare cases where the appellate order is illegal, irregular or improper and leads to miscarriage of justice. The scope for interference by this Court under S.115 CPC. is even more limited.

3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the tenants:

(i) The Rent Control petitions do not contain the necessary pleadings;

(ii) there is no finding regarding the bona fide nature of the landord's requirement;

(iii) there is evidence to show that the landlord has no subsisting title;

(iv) on the materials available, the only view possible is buildings require some repair, but not reconstruction;

(v) the courts below have attached more importance to the conditions of the locality and its needs, than to the condition of the building; and

(vi) at any rate, the plan produced discloses that the landlord's attempt is to defeat the tenants' rights under the third proviso to S.11(4)(iv).

4. The pleadings in all the Rent Control Petitions on the point in dispute were identical. The case set up was that the buildings had suffered severe damage and that they were situated in a fast-developing locality where a more modem building, giving a better return to the landlord, would be desirable. I am in agreement with counsel for the petitioners that something more than a vague reference to damage was necessary in a case like this, even if it was not necessary to assert that the buildings were in danger. Some specific features relating to the condition of the buildings, having a nexus with the need to reconstruct, should have been set out, and in this view, the pleadings were defective. But the law of pleadings cannot be strictly applied to proceedings before tribunals. It is seen that the parties were at issue on all the relevant requirements of the statute and that they were allowed to adduce all relevant evidence. It cannot be said that the tenants were prejudiced by a subsequent development of the landlord's case. The point does not also appear to have been raised before the three authorities below. I am therefore not inclined to interfere on the ground of insufficiency of pleadings.

5. Paragraphs (23) to (28) of the Rent Control Court's order show that specific findings have been recorded on the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement, as also on all other conditions to be satisfied, before ordering eviction. The appellate authority and the District Court have both done likewise. Point No. (ii) is t