IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 116 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.1/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.7/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF CPI OFFICE, ROOM NO.531, WARD NO.VII, VALAYAR PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ DR.RAMACHANDRAN KURUP, KALLELIL VILLAGE, VAYALAR MURI, ALAPPUZHA, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER LEELA P.PILLAI, D/O.AMMUKUTTY AMMA KOLLELIL HOUSE, VAYALAR MURI, VAYALAR KIZHAKKU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.116 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The subject matter of this revision petition is the local committee office of the Communist Party of India at Vayalar in Cherthala Taluk. Eviction has been ordered on the ground of arrears of rent and requirement of reconstruction ( Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(4)(iv). No serious arguments were addressed by Sri.V.N.Sankerjee as regards the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b). We therefore confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) and grant to the petitioner one month's time from today for getting that order vacated by making requisite deposit. The substantial ground on which eviction order is passed is the ground of reconstruction. Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge only one point before us. During the pendency of rent control proceedings, the Building Rules have been made applicable to the area in question and hence an approved building plan and permit issued by the local RCR.No.116/09 2 authority is necessary for carrying out the reconstruction. According to Sri.Sankarjee, the courts below have not been convinced that the respondent/landlord is having a building permit or an approved plan for carrying out reconstruction. 2. We have gone through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is seen that the above aspect of the matter did receive the attention of that authority. The learned Appellate Authority has observed that non-production of the approved plan and licence regarding reconstruction before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority should not be a ground for denying eviction and that “ the defect, if any, can be cured at the time of execution”. It appears to us that what the appellate authority intended to say was that the execution court before ordering delivery should be convinced that the landlord is having an approved plan and a building permit from the local authority. We therefore dispose of the revision petition directing the respondent to produce the approved plan as well as the building permit issued by the local authority in respect of the proposed reconstruction RCR.No.116/09 3 before the execution court and direct the execution court to order delivery only after that court is convinced that the respondent does possess an approved plan and building permit for carrying out the proposed reconstruction. In all other respects, the judgment of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.116/09 4