K. Harilal, J.

Since the issues and the parties involved in these Rent Control Revision Petitions are common, all these revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of together.

2. The revision petitioner is the landlord, who filed four Rent Control Petitions as RCP Nos. 110, 112, 118 and 131 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur seeking an order of eviction against the respondents under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short). According to him, the building is aged about 100 years and is in a dilapidated condition and it may collapse in the near future. He has sufficient financial capacity to re-construct the building and he has already obtained a plan and permit for re-construction of the building. He is willing to give first preference to the tenants to occupy the rooms in the re-constructed building on a reasonable rent.

3. The respondents resisted the said Rent Control Petitions on the ground that the building is not so dilapidated as alleged by the revision petitioner and the need for re-construction is a ruse for eviction only.

4. After considering the objections raised by the respondents and the evidence available on record, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(4) (iv) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred RCA Nos. 171, 172, 173 and 175 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court that the building needs re-construction and that the petitioner has ability to re-build the same; but remanded the Rent Control Petitions to the Rent Control Court on a finding that the building permit produced by the petitioner has expired earlier and directed the Rent Control Court to decide the issue as to whether the petitioner will get the plan and licence renewed in the light of the subsequent modifications in the relevant Building Rules and other Laws for the time being in force.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Going by the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, we find that the Appellate Authority has considered the relevant points as to whether the building needs re-construction and the landlord bona fide requires to re-construct the building and has ability to re-build and whether the landlord has got the plan and licence to re-construct the building. The first point was found in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the findings of the Rent Control Court that the building needs re-construction and that the landlord bona fide requires re-construction of the building and he has ability to re-build, were confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

7. In the Appellate Court, the respondents produced two additional documents, which they have obtained as per the Right to Information Act and raised a new plea on the basis of the said additional documents. The documents obtained as per the Right to Information Act are the documents from the Village Office, Azhikode South and the Grama Panchayath, Azhikode. The information was sought for from the Village Office, Azhikode South with regard to the requirement of permit to construct new building in the property in Survey No. 465/9. The information furnished is to the effect that the sanction for construction of building has to be issued from the Panchayath. The other documents show that the Panchayath has furnished an information stating that the said property has been classified as wet land, and that if the property is classified as 'nancha', permission will not be issued to construct a building and prohibition for the same has come into effect from December, 2015. In the light of the aforesaid documents, the respondents contended that the building permit produced before the Rent Control Court expired during the pendency of the Appeal in the