The court emphasized the need for a realistic interpretation of the 'condition of the building' and the social purpose of the provision to facilitate building programs while preventing unreasonable eviction.

1. The only ground which found favour with the hierarchy of tribunals under the Rent Control law for ordering eviction was the one falling under S.11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord contended that the building, which was admittedly 50 years old and was a thatched one, was in such a condition that it needed reconstruction. He also averred that he required it honestly to reconstruct it. He had the necessary plan and licence and satisfied the Court of his ability to rebuild. Thereupon, the Courts granted an eviction order.

2. Counsel for the tenant-revision petitioner argues that two conditions need to be satisfied and they are independent conditions. For one thing, the landlord must satisfy the Court that he bona fide requires to reconstruct the building. The ruling reported in AIR. 1963 SC. 499explains the conditions which are implied in this requirement of the law.

"The controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim, To reach this conclusion obviously the controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, and this can only be established by looking at all surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough that the landlord conies forward, and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by him. The clause speaks not of the bona fides of the landlord, but says on the other hand that the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction and re-erection must be bona fide, that is to say, honest in the circumstances. It is impossible, therefore, to hold that the investigation by the controller should be confined only to the existence of an intention in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intention must be honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances."

These observations of the Supreme Court, rendered in connection with a similar statute, will apply to the Kerala Act also with equal force. In the present case, the landlord has satisfied the Courts of his ability to rebuild. He has got the necessary plan and licence and he swears that he intends to reconstruct the building. Counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the landlord bad originally put forward the ground of bona fide need for his own occupation but finding that the tenant had been on the building long prior to 1940 he gave up that ground on account of the insuperable barrier contained in S.11 (17). The argument is that what he failed to achieve on account of the embargo in S.11 (17) he is trying to accomplish through S.11 (4) (iv). If really the landlord is wanting to start a big trade on his own and for that purpose he is trying to get recovery of possession, it follows that he bona fide intends to reconstruct

the present building because it is common case that in the present thatched shed the landlord cannot carry on any business that he envisages. Therefore, far from negativing the bona fides of the landlord in the matter of reconstruction, his desire to start a business of his own emphasises the bona fides of his intention to rebuild. On the whole, I am satisfied that the landlord has made out a case that he bona fides requires to reconstruct the building.

3. Counsel, however, argues and rightly, that the building must be in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and this ingredient has to be made out apart from the landlord's bona fide intention to reconstruct. Here, it is argued that the stress is upon the physical condition of the building. I do not agree. If eviction can be had only on the Court being satisfied that the physical condition of the building is on the verge of collapse, there is no doubt that few buildings could be evicted before they have actually collapsed. Knowing the length of time t