T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The defeated tenants are the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the common judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority in R.CA. Nos. 15/2010 and 17/2010. The appeals were filed by the landlords aggrieved by the rejection of the application for eviction on various grounds under Ss. 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Appellate Authority by reversing the order of the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. i.e., bona fide need and for reconstruction of the building.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners raised the following arguments:-

3. It is submitted that as far as eviction sought under S.11(4)(iv) is concerned, admittedly, the plan and license were not produced along with the eviction petition. It is submitted that the area in question is in a Municipality. Therefore the landlord ought to have obtained mandatory license. The learned counsel further contended that before the Appellate Authority along with an application under O.XLI R.27, the same was produced. But that was only after the order was passed by the Rent Controller. The learned counsel in that context drew our attention to a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Beeyathu v. Gopalan (2005 (1) KLT 313 (F.B.), especially paragraph 15.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the evidence as of now produced before the Appellate Authority will show that an application was there even before the filing of the Rent Control Petition and therefore nothing turns upon the filing of the same before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

5. We will find first refer to the finding of the Appellate Authority. In paragraphs 11 and 12, the said aspect has been considered. It is found in paragraph-11 that it is the settled position that it is not necessary to produce the plan and license for reconstruction along with the application. At the time of evidence, the landlord could not produce the plan and license also. In both the appeals, the landlord has produced the permit and plan issued by the Koothuparambu Municipality on 14.7.2011. The case of the landlord is that he had approached the Municipality as early as on 24.4.2005 by filing necessan applications, but it was not obtained due to some technical reasons in the Municipality and later he had been granted permission for the construction of the building on the second application and the same was accordingly produced. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the landlord had made arrangements to get the plan and license for reconstruction of the building in the year 2005 itself. It is further found that by the production of the documents, the landlord has satisfied the genuineness of the case that he had taken steps to obtain permission and license for his construction and he has obtained the plan and license for reconstruction of the building. The Full Bench of this Court in Beeyathu v. Gopalan (supra) analysed the requirement of S. 11(4)(iv), essentially the meaning of the words "if required'. The Full Bench explained the legal position in the following words:-

"These words, in our opinion, clearly qualify the expression 'the plan and licence'. The landlord has to satisfy the Court with regard to the existence of a plan and licence only if it is shown that these are required, in the absence of a positive requirement, it is not necessary for the landlord to produce the plan or the licence with the petition. Of course, if a plea regarding the plan is raised, the landlord may have to prove the relevant facts. Then the Court shall have to consider and decide the matter in the light of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties. Otherwise, the failure to produce the plan with the petition, in a case where the law does not require a prior permission from any authority, cannot be fatal to