A.HARIPRASAD, J

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondent.

2.

Revision petitioner is the tenant, who suffered an order of

eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). He unsuccessfully challenged the

eviction order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Being

dissatisfied with the concurrent findings against him, the tenant has

preferred this revision.

R.C.R No.39 of 2018 3

3.

Brief facts, relevant for disposal of the revision, are as follows :

Petition schedule building along with other rooms originally

belonged to the respondent's father. The revision petitioner took the

building on lease from him. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained right in

respect of the building by virtue of a partition deed. Respondent filed R.C.P

No.102 of 2005 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, seeking eviction

of the revision petitioner. The petition was allowed against which the

revision petitioner preferred R.C.A No.133 of 2006 before the Rent Control

Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. Against the dismissal of a ground under

Section 11(3) of the Act, the landlady preferred R.C.R No.98 of 2008 before

this Court. This Court as per order dated 22-03-2011, considered the rival

contentions and observed thus :

“ 5. We have given our anxious consideration to

the submissions addressed by Mr.Mohammed

Nias and Mr.Ananthakrishnan. We must notice

R.C.R No.39 of 2018 4

immediately that we do not find much infirmity

about the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate

Authority dismissing the R.C.P. in which the only

eviction ground invoked was the ground under

sub-section (3) of Section 11. We also feel, as the

Appellate Authority appears to have felt that the

apposite eviction ground which may be available

to the landlady is the ground under Section 11(4)

(iv). But as rightly pointed out by

Mr.Ananthakrishnan, before eviction order is

passed under Section 11(4)(iv), the Rent Control

Court has to be satisfied about the existence of the

statutory prerequisite such as condition of the

building, availability of a building plan and

licence, the capacity of the landlord to carry out

the reconstruction and the profitability of the

proposal from the landlord's point of view. We

also find merit in the submission of

Mr.Ananthakrishnan that basic pleadings are

R.C.R No.39 of 2018 5

necessary before eviction order is passed under

Section 11(4)(iv). Having anxiously considered

the entirety of the facts and circumstances which

attended on this case and the submissions

addressed at RCR 98/08 5 the Bar, we feel that

this is a case where the landlady should initiate

fresh proceedings for evicting the respondents by

invoking the eviction ground under Section 11(4)

(iv). Of course, the condition of the building

warrants reconstruction as is clear from Ext.C1

commission report. But the R.C.P. lacks proper

pleadings. As we have already noticed, before

eviction order is passed under Section 11(4)(iv),

the Rent Control Court has to be satisfied on

evidence regarding availability of a building plan

and licence and the capacity of the landlady to

carry out the reconstruction. The same is lacking

in this case. We are, therefore, inclined to permit

the landlady to initiate fresh proceedings for

R.C.R No.39 of 2018 6

eviction on the ground of reconstruction. "

4.

Based on the above findings, the respondent filed R.C.P No.72 of

2011, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner under Sections 11(3) and

11(4)(iv) of the Act. It is an admitted case that the petition was not pursued

and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the present

application is filed seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, alleging

that the responde