The right of the evicted tenant to get back the reconstructed building is a valuable right and cannot be defeated by the landlord by reconstructing the building into a non-residential one.

Questions of some importance in the matter of eviction of a tenant for reconstruction of the building under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short the Act, arise for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions. The questions are:

(i) Whether the tenant of a residential building can be evicted for reconstructing the same into a non-residential building in view of the right of option for allotment of the reconstructed building the tenant has under the third proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act.

(ii) Whether the reconstruction of a residential building into a non-residential one will be hit by the prohibition against conversion of buildings contained in S.17(1) of the Act.

(iii) Whether the plan and licence for reconstruction of the building should be thereat the time of filing the petition for eviction itself or it need be made available by the time evidence is taken in the petition, and

(iv) Whether in a revision filed against an order for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act the Revisional Authority can give a direction to the landlord to submit a fresh plan for the reconstruction of the building and uphold the order of eviction on the basis of that direction.

The tenants of ten rooms of a residential building bearing separate door numbers situated in the Trichur town who were respondents in RCP. Nos 69, 93, 94, 95,96,97,98,99,100 and 151 of 1969 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Trichur are the petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions and the respondents the landlords In all the rent control petitions eviction was sought under S.11(2) and (4)(iv) of the Act on the grounds of arrears of rent and reconstruction respectively. In RCP. No. 69 of 1969 a ground of sub-letting under S.11(4)(i) was also taken as, according to the landlord, the tenant to whom the room was originally let out sublet the same and the sub-lessee is residing there and running a tea shop in it. The Rent Control Court by a common order allowed the eviction petitions under S 11(2)(b) of the Act rejecting the other grounds for eviction taken by the landlords. From the above order of the Rent Control Court the landlord filed appeals before the Subordinate Judge, Trichur who is the Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority found that the landlords bona fide require to reconstruct the building and allowed all the eviction petitions under S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act. In RCP. 69 of 1969 eviction was allowed on the ground of subletting under S.11(4) (i) also. Thereupon, the tenants filed revisions before the District Court, Trichur under S.20 of the Act. The learned District Judge by separate orders dismissed all the revisions by giving a direction to the landlords to re-submit a fresh plan to enable the reconstruction of the building into one with 10 rooms to enable the ten evicted tenants to exercise their option under the third proviso to S 11(4)(iv) of the Act. As per the approved plan the building was to be reconstructed into one with eight rooms only. The tenants challenge the above orders in revision passed by the learned District Judge in these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act a tenant of a residential building cannot be evicted for reconstructing the same into a non-residential building. According to the learned counsel, if that is possible, provisos 1 to 3 of S.11(4)(iv) will become meaningless. Learned counsel points out that the clear indication in the above provisos is that the evicted tenant should have the first option for the allotment of the reconstructed building and that the reconstruction should be completed within the time fixed for the same and the tenant should be put back in possession with the least possible delay. Learned counsel contends that the chances of reoccupation of the tenant cannot be defeated by the landlord by reconstructing the building into a non-residential one.