The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord is not bound to produce the plan along with the petition for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act unless it is required by law.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

Is the landlord, who seeks eviction of the tenant under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of need to reconstruct the building bound to produce the plan along with the petition or during the proceedings? Is the failure to do so fatal to the petition? This is the question before the Full Bench. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.

2. On March 6, 1964, the demised premises were given on lease to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a period of ten months. The monthly rate of rent was fixed at Rs.9/-. After the lapse of more than 15 years, the petitioner sent a notice dated September 22, 1979 to the respondents. By this notice, the tenancy was terminated. They were asked to vacate the premises. On October 10, 1979 the first respondent had sent a reply. Mediation followed. The building was got repaired. The monthly rent was raised to Rs.15/-. The rent at the revised rate was paid upto April 1980. Thereafter no payment was made. It was further alleged that the second respondent had transferred his rights to the third respondent without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. Lastly, the petitioner stated that the building is old. It is in a dilapidated state. Buildings with modern facilities had come up in the vicinity. The building required reconstruction. She has the financial capacity to "reconstruct the building with all modern amenities and in a new pattern". On these grounds, the petitioners sought the eviction of the respondents. She presented a petition before the Rent Controller (Principal Munsiff), Thalassery. The petitioner claimed that she was entitled to the eviction of the respondents on the grounds available to her under Ss.11(2), 11 (4)(i) and 11 (4)(iv) of the Act.

3. The claim was contested by the respondents.

4. On a consideration of the matter, the Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of failure to pay the rent. Aggrieved by the order, the landlady and the tenants filed appeals.

5. The Appellate Authority considered the matter. It found that "the building itself is in a ruined condition. Even the doors and windows fitted on the walls are in a ruined condition...............".

The "building is in a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction". The finding of the Trial Court was reversed. On the question of rate of rent, it was held that the petitioner had "not succeeded in proving that the rent was enhanced from Rs.9/- to Rs.15/-.............. " On these findings, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the tenants to put the landlady in possession. The right to claim possession under the proviso to S. 11(4)(iv) was protected. The appeal filed by the tenants was allowed to the extent that the rate of rent was Rs.9/- and not Rs. 15/- per mensem as claimed by the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the tenants and the landlady filed Revision Petitions. The District Judge affirmed the finding with regard to the rate of rent. On the need for reconstruction also, the finding was affirmed. However, it was held that "the legal requirement and the condition precedent for grant of an order under S. 11(4)(iv) have not been satisfied inasmuch as the plan had not been produced". Reliance for this conclusion was placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kesava Pillai v. Paulose, 1989 (2) KLT 416. On these findings, the Revision Petition filed by the tenants was allowed and the judgment of the Appellate Authority was reversed.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

8. The matter was placed before a learned Single Judge. It was noticed that there was difference of opinion within the Court. Divergent views had been expressed in Kesava Pillai's case (supra) and Nizzar Rawther v. Varghese Mathew, 1991 (2) KLT 223. Thus, the case was referred to