IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 RCRev..No. 82 OF 2008() ----------------------- RCA.75/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.31/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT K.M.JOY @ XAVIER, AGED 54, S/O.MATHAI KOTTAYIL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA, VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.G.BHASKAR SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER P.M.SUKUMARAN, AGED 54, S/O.NARAYANAN PADANNAMAKKAL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA,VATAKARA. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R1 SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R. 82/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 797/2008 IN R.C.R. 82/2008 // DISMISSED // SD/- 2ND JULY, 2008. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. knc./- P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 82 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act on the ground of reconstruction. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, a specific contention raised by the revision petitioner was that building rules have been made applicable to the panchayath area as a result of which licence is a pre-condition for starting re-construction. This aspect was specifically dealt with by the Appellate Authority in para 10 of its judgment and after following the decision in Nizzar Rawther v. Varghese Mathew (1991(2) KLT 223) it was held that at the time of ordering eviction requirement of licence is not necessary and if subsequently the area is converted into municipality, absence of licence is of no consequence. The Appellate Authority in such circumstances held that the contention of the tenant that the required licence as per the Kerala Buildings Rules has not been obtained by the landlord, is of no consequence. RCR 82/2008 :2: 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant reiterated his contention that the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority without taking notice of the change in the circumstances brought out by the fact that building rules have been made applicable to panchayath area is clearly erroneous and required to be reconsidered. 3. We have heard both sides. Admittedly, the building situates in a panchayath area and the eviction was sought at a time when the building rules were not applicable to the area. Therefore, the reconstruction of the building can be made only in accordance with the rules prevailing. As per Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, if the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction and an order of eviction is passed on that ground, necessarily, the tenant will have to be re-inducted to the premises after such reconstruction. This is a safeguard specifically provided in favour of the tenant. However, because of the pendency of the matter before court, rules may change, but that will not affect the right of the landlord to seek eviction. At the same time, the tenant's right to be re-inducted cannot also be taken away. 4. In these circumstances, we find that the order of eviction as such passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority RCR 82/2008 :3: does not call for any interference. However, we direct that before taking delivery of the property, the landlord shall submit a revised plan in accordance with the rules before the executing court. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-