Pius. C. Kuriakose, J.

A tenant who has suffered an order of eviction under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act concurrently at the hands of the rent control court and the appellate authority has come up in revision. The building in question is only one room in a larger building having as many as 9 rooms. All the 9 tenants were arrayed as respondents in the rent control petition and the landlords case as averred in the RCP was, that the building in question is in such a condition as warranting reconstruction, that the landlords bonafide needs to reconstruct the building; that they have the ability to reconstruct and that they have the requisite plan and licence from the Cherthala Municipality. The claim was resisted by the respondents who contended inter alia that the condition of the building is not such that as requiring reconstruction, that the proposal is not profitable, that the landlord does not have the requisite plan and licence and that it will not be possible for the landlord to provide equal area presently being enjoyed by the tenants in the new building after reconstruction.

2. The evidence before the rent control court consisted of the oral testimony of PW1, civil agent of the petitioners, and documents- Exts.A1 to A22 apart from Ext.C1 Commissioners report. On the side of the respondents there was no counter oral evidence and their evidence consisted of Exts.B1 and B2 only which were copies of two earlier rent control petition filed by the landlords which were dismissed for default. The rent control court on an evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the condition of the building is such that the same requires reconstruction, that the landlords have the ability to carry out reconstruction and that the proposal of reconstruction will be profitable to them and the proposal is not a ruse, but is a bonafide one. It was noticed that the validity of the plan had expired and therefore eviction was ordered subject to the condition that the execution court must be convinced regarding the renewal of the building permit granted by the local authority.

3. Before the appellate authority, the renewed permit and plan was produced and got marked as Ext.A23 and A23(a). Before the appellate authority, Ext.B3, a letter from the local authority was produced and a contention that there is a proposal to widen the road by the side of which the petition schedule is being constructed and that the proposed reconstruction has become impossible on account of such proposal was taken. In the light of Ext.B3, the respondents landlords were directed by the appellate authority to obtain clarification from the local authority. The clarification was obtained and produced.

4. The appellate authority would make a reappraisal of the entire evidence including the additional evidence produced before that authority and would concur with the conclusions of the rent control court. It was reiterated that the condition of the building warrants reconstruction and that the landlords bonafide require to reconstruct the building. It was also found that it will be possible for the landlords to allow the respondent the benefit of re-induction in the newly constructed building under the 3rd proviso to Section 11(4)(iv).

5. Sri.J.Omprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us extensively on the various grounds raised in the revision petition. Learned counsel would draw our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janaki Vashdeo v. Indusind Bank (2005(2) KLT 265 (SC) and also to the judgment of this court in Ratheesh Kumar v. Jithendra Kumar (2005(2) KLT 669). Learned counsel pointed out that though there are as many as 9 landlords and all of them have joined the rent control petition, not even one among them has been examined, instead, PW1, their civil agent, who is incompetent to speak as to the state of mind of his principals alone has been examined. According to the learned counsel,