Judgment :- 1. The ambit of the court's powers in the matter of allotment of a reconstructed building to the tenant who was evicted and who has got the first option under the third proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act comes up for consideration in this case. The petitioner was the owner of a two-storeyed building. He wanted to reconstruct the building as some of the tenants occupying the building did not vacate it Petitions for eviction were filed against them under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. One of them was the first respondent in the CRP. He was occupying a room 24" x 13" having an area of 312 Sq ft. on the southern side in the first floor of the building. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on the ground of reconstruction specifically reserving the statutory right of the tenant for the first option to the reconstructed structure, it might be noted that in ordering eviction the petitioner had produced a plan and licence which are required for reconstruction as under the statute he has to satisfy the court that he has got such plans and licenses. In the other rent control petitions filed by the petitioner similar orders for eviction were passed. But in regard to some of the tenants, they had vacated the rooms that they were occupying voluntarily. According to the petitioner, they had agreed to such vacating the building on the undertaking given by the petitioner that they will be given room in the reconstructed structure. One such tenant was Chacko Manthuruthiyil who was also occupying the northern side room in the first floor occupied by the first respondent. 2. After the tenants were evicted the building was reconstructed according to the plans produced before the Rent Control Court. In the reconstructed building the first floor consisted of a big hall which has an area of 2555 sq.ft and one room. The petitioner allowed Chacko to occupy that room which is on the northern side of the reconstructed structure. As the hall is very big and contained a much larger area the respondent was offered a room in the second floor having all conveniences. The respondent tenant refused to occupy that room offered in the second floor. He insisted that he should get a room in the first floor. As the hall is very big and contained a much larger area the respondent was offered a room in the second floor having all conveniences. The respondent tenant refused to occupy that room offered in the second floor. He insisted that he should get a room in the first floor. As the petitioner did not comply with his request the respondent filed I. A. No. 923 of 1971 before the Rent Control Court for orders to direct the petitioner to put the respondent in possession of an area of 312 sq.ft. which will be equal to the area of the room that he was occupying in the first floor of the reconstructed building The Rent Control Court rejecting the contentions of the petitioner held that the respondent is entitled to an order to put him back to possession in an area of 312 sq ft. in the first floor of the reconstructed building with liability to pay the fair rent of Rs 171.60 per month which fair rent has been fixed in a separate petition 3. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Appellate Authority did not agree with the Rent Controller. The learned Subordinate Judge, the Appellate Authority, said that if is mandatory that the landlord should have submitted a plan before the Rent Control Court before an order for eviction is obtained on the ground of reconstruction. In this case it is not disputed that such a plan was produced before the court. The landlord had been allowed to reconstruct the building on the basis of the said plan and it has to be presumed that the building was reconstructed as per the plan. The learned Subordinate Judge then said that the original building had been demolished after the order of the Rent Controller was obtained for reconstruction, which included the room which as per the definition in the Act would be an independent building. In its place a new building has been constructed, which has got four floors. Can the particular portion of the old building that was originally let out to the tenant be identified with any part of the reconstructed structure? The Appellate Authority proceeded to state: "In the physical sense there is only one building now. There were a number of tenants. Can the particular portion of the old building that was originally let out to the tenant be identified with any part of the reconstructed structure? The Appellate Authority proceeded to state: "In the physical sense there is only one building now. There were a number of tenants. The claims of all have to be satisfied. In that process the landlord may not be in a position to allot the exact portion that was originally in the occupation of a tenant. Some adjustment may have to be made. It has also to be noticed that the landlord cannot be compelled to construct a building according to the specification of the tenant. When a landlord reconstructs a building he may have several matters in view. That apart, the tenant has only an option. He cannot be compelled to occupy the reconstructed building. Therefore, the landlord can reconstruct the building only according to his own convenience. In such a situation it will be impracticable to compel the landlord to allot the identical portion that was formerly let out to the tenant. There can be cases where there may be no building at all in the portion originally occupied by the" tenant. In these matters a reasonable view has to be taken. The landlord has offered a room with identical extent and with better amenities in the second floor. It is for the tenant to opt for the portion, offered to him or to reject it." In this view the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the application filed by the respondent tenant. 4. The respondent took up the matter in revision before the District Court under S.20 of the above Act. According to the learned District Judge, in the light of the provisions in the third proviso to S.11 (4) (iv) of the above Act it is idle to contend that the tenant has no right to stipulate as which room he is entitled to get in the reconstructed building. Though there is no express stipulation in the provision, according to the learned District Judge, it is implied therein that the tenant is entitled to have similar accommodation in the reconstructed building. The tenant is a Dentist by profession. As such people of all age groups including children and old and infirm persons will have to come to him. Though there is no express stipulation in the provision, according to the learned District Judge, it is implied therein that the tenant is entitled to have similar accommodation in the reconstructed building. The tenant is a Dentist by profession. As such people of all age groups including children and old and infirm persons will have to come to him. If the tenant is compelled to occupy the room in the second floor, his clients will have to climb up one more flight of steps also. That will adversely affect his profession. In this view the District Judge directed the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the room in the first floor of the new building which is let out to Chacko. If that is not possible for him, then, he will provide the tenant with a room having a floor area of 312 sq. ft. in the first floor itself by putting up a partition wall to the hall now occupied by the South Indian Bank. The Court also said that the tenant should be provided with all the amenities he had in the old building. Directing the landlord to comply with the directions within three months the learned District Judge allowed the revision petition setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority 5. According to Mr. M. I. Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revisional court under the Act has illegally exercised its jurisdiction. The Tribunal under the statute can only exercise such power which statute sanctions and cannot travel outside. He would also contend that the statute concerned namely the Act referred to earlier, did not confer any right on the tenant to select or choose a room in the building, but the statute gives him only right to opt to have the reconstructed building allotted to him. The room provided to him by the landlord with the similar area and all amenities would be more convenient if not equal to the room which the tenant was occupying in the old building. 6. After hearing the counsel on both sides and going through the relevant provisions in the statute I am of the view that the landlord has to succeed. 6. After hearing the counsel on both sides and going through the relevant provisions in the statute I am of the view that the landlord has to succeed. It might be noted that the word building has been defined in the Act to mean any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes. In the instant case the word 'building' in S.11 (4) (iv) can only mean the room which the tenant was occupying. It cannot be said that a room in the first floor would be the building which the tenant was occupying. There is no provision in the statute which compels the landlord to reconstruct the building in the same manner as it was existing at the time of the demolition. It might also be noted that the court orders eviction on the basis of the bonafide requirement of the landlord after being satisfied that the landlord has the plan and licence for that purpose. The plan and the licence in the case will have to be produced before the court In the first floor of the old building there were three tenants. As per the reconstructed building there is now only one room the rest of the space being occupied by a big hall. The tenant cannot opt for the big hall. It can under no circumstances be said to be the building which he was occupying and if there are three tenants who would be entitled to take advantage of the proviso, there is no provision in the statute which says that a particular tenant has got the right of first option in precedence to the other tenants. There is nothing wrong in the landlord having given the only room in the first floor to Chacko. It is impossible to say that the tenant was occupying a particular part of the new structure and the landlord has allowed the tenant to occupy a room which has got an area not less than the area of the room which he was occupying and with all the amenities that he had in the first instance. In the Mysore statute on which a decision has been rendered in the case referred to by the learned District judge, namely in Lawrence Mascarenhas v. Ignatius Pereira AIR. In the Mysore statute on which a decision has been rendered in the case referred to by the learned District judge, namely in Lawrence Mascarenhas v. Ignatius Pereira AIR. 1973 Mysore 324, there is a specific provision S. 27(b) of the Mysore Rent Control Act which states that his occupation of the building shall save as provided in condition (a) be on the same terms and conditions as per the terms and conditions, which he occupied the building immediately before the eviction. 7. Apart from the fact that the Mysore decision therefore could have no application here, even under the Mysore Act it will not be possible to say that when a building is reconstructed in a different manner with rooms differently situated than in the old building, the tenant should be allowed the option to occupy any particular space which he points out. The landlord's right is restricted to a certain extent by the statute in the matter of letting out. Only to that extent he can be prevented from letting out the building to persons of his choice. Here there has been a sufficient compliance by the landlord in the matter of allotment of the room to the old tenant. There is no basis for the interference by the court in the landlord's action. In the affidavit filed in this court, the tenant has said: "Out of the remaining two tenants of the first floor one among them is myself Immediately on completion of the building I have filed my application on 25-6-1971. The landlord could very well allot the room available at the first floor even after allotting the space for the South Indian Bank. But after I have filed the petition on 25-6-1971 the landlord put forward a contention that the said room is let out Manthrithiyil Chacko. As a matter of fact he is only a dependent of the landlord. The said room has got an area of 342 sq. feet. The room which 1 occupied in the previous building was 312 sq. ft. in extent. There was no direction given to the landlord by the Rent Control Court, to give the said Manthrithiyil Chacko any accommodation since there was no rent control proceedings instituted by the landlord against him. The landlord did not offer to let that room to me. The room which 1 occupied in the previous building was 312 sq. ft. in extent. There was no direction given to the landlord by the Rent Control Court, to give the said Manthrithiyil Chacko any accommodation since there was no rent control proceedings instituted by the landlord against him. The landlord did not offer to let that room to me. If it was offered to me I would have surely accepted it and my grievances would have been redressed. As a matter of fact the said room is even now vacant. Manthrithiyil Chacko is not really occupying the room. I have enquired in the Municipality and I have come to know that there are absolutely no records there, that be is occupying the room or conduct any business and the said Manthrithiyil Chacko does not do any business there. The said Manthrithiyil Chacko is not a necessary party to this proceeding, since he is not actually occupying the room. Even the alleged occupation by him is only after the petition I have filed on 25-6-1971. So on that ground also he is not a necessary party to this proceeding" In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord it is stated: "Adjacent room in the northern side of Dr. Thomas was occupied by Sri. M.C. Chacko Manthrithiyil. He vacated to facilitate reconstruction on the understanding that a room will be given to him in the reconstructed building ... Dr. Thomas was occupying the extreme southern side of the old building. On his own argument he cannot claim a room on the northern side of the reconstructed building which is at present occupied by Sri. Chacko. Sri. Chacko is a very old tenant who occupied the room much earlier than Dr. Thomas - the respondent. Sri. Chacko will not loose his claim for accommodation in the reconstructed building for voluntarily vacating the old building to facilitate reconstruction without delay. The room allotted to Dr. Thomas is a suitable accommodation and the petitioner is not bound to reconstruct the building to cater the interest of the tenants. In the Rent Control Court the plan was filed and the Court allowed the petition without any direction to give to the respondent a particular portion of the reconstructed building. The room allotted to Dr. Thomas is a suitable accommodation and the petitioner is not bound to reconstruct the building to cater the interest of the tenants. In the Rent Control Court the plan was filed and the Court allowed the petition without any direction to give to the respondent a particular portion of the reconstructed building. The Rent Control Court has also no authority or jurisdiction to direct the landlord to give a particular portion of the reconstructed building to a tenant who was evicted for the purpose of reconstruction". 8. I think the landlord's contentions are correct. There is nothing wrong in letting out one room in the first floor to Sri. Chacko. This court in this proceeding cannot adjudicate on the rights of the petitioner as against Chacko, Chacko being not a party to the proceedings. In any view of the matter, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was a reasonable one and the District Court should not have interfered in the matter under S.20 of the Act. I therefore set aside the order of the District Judge and restore the order of the Appellate Authority. This CRP. is allowed. I make no order as to costs.