IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 190 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.14/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHOIRTY , PATHANAMTHITTA RCP.7/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT.,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER (S): -------------------- KRISHNAN ACHARY, S/O. CHELLAPPAN ACHARY, USHA BHAVAN, ANAPPARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DR.T.A.GEORGE, S/O. ABRAHAM, THELLEERATHU HOUSE, CHITTOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. T.A.ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, THELLEERATHU HOUSE, CHITTOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DR.T.A. GEORGE, HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. 3. DR.THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, THELLEERATHU HOUSE, CHITTOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DR.T.A. GEORGE, HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 190 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The order of eviction passed concurrently under Section 11(4)(iv) for reconstruction of the petition schedule building is challenged in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Saritha would submit that there is no specific pleading to the effect that the building actually requires reconstruction. Though the building is about 50 years old, it is still strong enough to remain in the same condition for decades and so the building does not require reconstruction, so submitted Smt.Saritha. It is also submitted that Ext.A2 plan and licence are produced by the landlords only at the time of evidence. It is further contended that the need for reconstruction projected by the landlords is only a ruse for eviction. According to the learned counsel, these aspects are not considered by the courts below. RCR.No.190/2011 2 2. We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and also the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. It is seen that both the courts have analysed the evidence in detail in the correct perspective. There is a definite finding that the building needs reconstruction and that the petition schedule building is aged more than 50 years. It is situated in the heart of Pathanamthitta town. If a new building is constructed, it can be put to more profitable use by the landlords. The fact that the landlords have the financial capacity to reconstruct the building is not seriously disputed. In such circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the two courts below. 3. The result therefore is as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed. ii). It is made clear that the tenant/revision petitioner will have the first option to re-occupy the portion of the reconstructed building, but with liability to pay fair rent. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to surrender possession of the petition scheudle building. Reconstruction shall be done within one year from the date of getting peaceful RCR.No.190/2011 3 possession of the building as stated by the courts below. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk