Judgment :- 1. The respondent-tenant in R. C. O. P. No 24/ 79 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The landlords of the petition schedule building sought recovery of the same under S.11 (2) and 11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter stated as the Act). The Rent" Control Court by its order dated 10.6.1980 allowed eviction under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act. On appeal by the tenant in R. C. A. No. 60/80 the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichur allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for recovery of the building by judgment dated 17.6. 1982. The landlords took up the matter in revision before the District Court, Trichur in R.C.R.P. No. 76/82. The learned District Judge by order dated 28.2.1984 restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction under S.11 (4) of the Act. The Revisional Court further directed: "The revision petitioners will reconstruct the building within 6 months after getting possession and put the respondent in possession of the front space upto the staircase room as shown in Ext. A4 plan on payment of fair rent." The tenant challenges the order of eviction passed by the District Court in this Revision Petition. 2. The short question that arises for consideration by this court is whether the petition schedule building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, tenant the physical condition of the building is the only material fact that is to be gone into in deciding whether the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction. The report Ext. Cl filed by the Commissioner would go to show that the petition schedule building is structurally strong that it will continue for pretty long number of years and so the building needs no reconstruction. This argument of the learned counsel, I am afraid, cannot be countenanced. 3. The expression "condition of the building" as coming within the purview of S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act came up for consideration in Kalliani & others v. Madhavi & others (1970 KLT 257). V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as he then was) gave the meaning to the "condition of the building" in the following terms. 3. The expression "condition of the building" as coming within the purview of S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act came up for consideration in Kalliani & others v. Madhavi & others (1970 KLT 257). V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as he then was) gave the meaning to the "condition of the building" in the following terms. "Counsel, however argues and rightly, that the building must be in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and this ingredient has to be made out apart from the landlord's bonafide intention to reconstruct. Here, it is argued that the stress is upon the physical condition of the building. I do not agree. If eviction can be had only on the Court being satisfied that the physical condition of the building is on the verge of collapse, there [is no doubt that few buildings could be evicted before they have actually collapsed. Knowing the length of time taken in rent control litigation in Kerala, not unusual to find the period between the institution of an application and its ultimate disposal in the revisional court lengthening into several years if a building perilously close to sinking alone can justify a petition under S.11 (4) (iv) in a State with heavy monsoons, I do not know what purpose, would be served by such a course except to endanger the lives of tenants. It is obvious, therefore, that a wider and more realistic meaning must be given to the [expression "condition of the building". The social purpose of this provision is to remove the road blocks in the way of progress in building programmes. Old structures in newly developing areas may be like pimples on fair faces. Replacement and renewal of obsolescent and unsightly buildings to make room for larger, modern constructions is a social necessity, provided existing (tenants are not thrown into the streets. The "condition of the building" is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors. Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surroundings of the place, Court has go to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law. However, the primary purpose of the statute viz., prevention of unreasonable eviction must also inform the court when applying this provision. Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surroundings of the place, Court has go to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law. However, the primary purpose of the statute viz., prevention of unreasonable eviction must also inform the court when applying this provision. That is precisely why the statute itself provides that the tenant if evicted on the ground of need to reconstruct, should be put back in the building, when reconstructed. A blend of the social needs of replacement and renewal and the avoidance of unreasonable eviction is achieved by S.11 (4) (iv), in that it provides for eviction when the building is in a physically or socially bad condition. At the same time, the tenant is armed with a eight to get back into possession of the premises when rebuilt." In 1979 K L.T. 397 George Vadakkel, J. after reviewing all the decisions on the point came to the conclusion that the physical condition of the building alone cannot be the criterion. The head note which clearly brings out the decision in Church of South India Trust Association v. Ramanathan (1979 K.L.T. 397) is as follows: "Under S.11 (4) iv) of the Act, if the landlord requires bonafide to reconstruct the building, that is to say, if the landlord has a genuine intention to reconstruct the building and if he satisfies the court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant provided "the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction". The physical condition of the building alone is not the criterion to apply S.11 (4) (iv) and seek eviction on the ground of reconstruction. A wider and more realistic meaning must be given to the expression 'condition of the building'. The 'condition of the building' is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors. Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surrounding of the place, the court has got to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law". 4. A different note was struck by M.P. Menon, J. in Thanka v. Narayani (1981 K.L.T. 502). Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surrounding of the place, the court has got to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law". 4. A different note was struck by M.P. Menon, J. in Thanka v. Narayani (1981 K.L.T. 502). In that decision he has observed: "The landlord's desire may be bona fide, he may be ready with money, plan and licence, it may even be reasonable to permit reconstruction from the point or view of the return he could get; still, as I read S.11 (4) (iv), what is fundamental is the physical condition of the building." It was further observed: "When the legislature wants you to look at the condition of a building for deciding whether it needs reconstruction, the word "condition" has to be understood in its ordinary sense i. e. circumstances essential to a thing's existence. At any rate, you cannot look at it like a town-planner or an investor. Conditions surrounding the building are not the same as the condition of the building, It may not be difficult to show, with reference to many areas of our State, that a Bank has established a branch, that a work-shop has come into existence, that a new school has been opened and that ultra modern concrete structures are coming up at places not far distant from the building occupied by a tenant. To inflate these circumstances into importance and to ignore the requirement of rational connection between the building's physical condition and the proposal to reconstruct, will be to create an area illicit by the statute, unsurveyed by the law-makers and therefore unsuitable for exploration by the judicial process". 5. Without referring to the decision in 1981 K.L.T. 502 in Varghese Mathews v. Fakir Rawther Abdul Razack Rawther (AIR 1982 Kerala 29) P. Surbramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. (as he then was), while considering the scope of "condition of building," observed: "It is not merely the physical condition of the building that is the criterion to determine the question of need for reconstruction. Many other considerations must necessarily enter into the determination of the question whether the building is in such a condition as needing reconstruction. C.J. (as he then was), while considering the scope of "condition of building," observed: "It is not merely the physical condition of the building that is the criterion to determine the question of need for reconstruction. Many other considerations must necessarily enter into the determination of the question whether the building is in such a condition as needing reconstruction. The age of the building, its adaptability for current use, the economic viability of keeping the building in the same condition are all matters which may have to be taken into account. The locality in which the building is situate might have become much more important since its construction years earlier and the construction of a new building utilising the ground space to the maximum benefit of the owner may bring in much more advantageous return to him. That may be aground for seeking eviction for the purpose of reconstruction. But the court has always the duty to see that such a plea is not made merely as a pretext for eviction and that the plea is honest". In Balagangadhara Menon v. T.V. Peter (1984 K.L.T. 845) a Division Bench of this Court after considering the decision reported in 1981 K.L.T. 502 stated: "We find it unable to agree with the narrow view laid down in 1981 K.L.T. 502 on this aspect". 6. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal (AIR 1963 S C 499) the landlord sought eviction of the tenants from the building inter alia on the ground that the shops occupied by the tenants were in a state of great disrepair and were dilapidated and he wishes to rebuild the same after demolishing the structure. S.13 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 2006 BK provided that a landlord may apply for eviction "in the case of any building if he (landlord) requires it for re-erection of that building or for its replacement by another building or for the erection of other buildings". On the question of the construction of the above provision of the Ordinance their Lordships observed: "The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. On the question of the construction of the above provision of the Ordinance their Lordships observed: "The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. To reach this conclusion obviously the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of [the claim made by the landlord, and this can only be established by looking at all surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after construction the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough that the landlord comes forward, and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by him. The very purpose of the Rent Restriction Acts would be defeated, if the landlords were to come forward and to get tenants turned out, on the bare plea that they want to reconstruct the houses. ;without first establishing that the plea is bona fide with regard to all the circumstances viz., that the houses need reconstruction or that they have the means to reconstruct the building etc." In Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1559) their Lordships had to consider the factors and circumstances to be considered before ordering eviction for reconstruction under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. S.14 (1) (b) of that Act is as follows: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of S.12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller shall, 'if he is satisfied - (b) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlords before a specified date". In interpreting the provision their Lordships observed: "As stated earlier it cannot be disputed that the phrase used in S.14 (1) (b) of the Act is 'the building is bona fide required by the landlord' for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord it is also true that the requirement in terms is not that the building should need immediate demolition and reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition of the building and the extant to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally irrelevant factor while determining "the bona fide requirement of the landlord". If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf of the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being; possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S.14(1) (b). In a sense if the building happens to decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make for the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Conversely a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound condition and its situation may prevent its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors may cast a serious doubt on the landlord's bona fide requirement. It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S.14(1) (b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored." 7. From the above decisions it appears that factors like the situation of the building, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction, the developments that are taking place in the locality are all relevant matters to be gone into by the court in finding out the condition of the building before arriving at a decision under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. This doesn't mean that the court is not to look into the physical condition of the building sought to be demolished. Existing condition of the building is relevant and is a vital factor which will have to be considered while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord. 8. In the instant case the Commissioner has estimated the age of the building at 60 years. He has reported that coconut rafters have been used for the root of the building. He has noticed cracks above the door frames in two rooms. According to him if a modern building is put up more space can be created and the landlords can get a higher rent. The building is situated in one of the very important areas of Kunnamkulam town. Ext.C2 sketch prepared by the Commissioner shows that modern buildings have come up in the locality very close to the petition schedule building. On either side of the petition schedule building new concrete storied buildings have been constructed. Just on the opposite side of the road, three storied concrete buildings have come into existence. From Ext.C2 rough sketch it would appear that the petition schedule building is an eye sore to the locality. All these aspects have been considered by the Rent Control Court in allowing eviction under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act. That decision was reversed by the Appellate Authority solely basing on the decision reported in 1981 K.L.T. 502. The principles stated in that decision have not been approved by the Division Bench in the decision reported in 1984 KLT 845. The learned District Judge while disposing of R C.R.P. No. 76/82 restored the decision of the Rent Control Court basing on the principles of law laid down in 1984 KLT 845 and AIR 1982 Kerala 29. Ia the light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to earlier in this judgment and the Division Bench decision it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge is in any way erroneous. Taking into consideration the physical condition of the petition schedule building, the developments that have taken place in the locality and the material advantage to which the building can be put to after reconstruction, the order of eviction passed under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act has to be upheld and I do so. 9. Taking into consideration the physical condition of the petition schedule building, the developments that have taken place in the locality and the material advantage to which the building can be put to after reconstruction, the order of eviction passed under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act has to be upheld and I do so. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 21497/84 praying for receiving an additional document in evidence. The additional document sought to be let in is a Form 13 notification publishing a draft scheme under R.42 of the Travancore Town Planning Rules. As per this notification survey No. 1028 of Kunnamkulam Village, where the petition schedule building stands, is included in a Town Planning Scheme. Therefore, according to counsel even if the landlords get possession of the petition schedule building, they will not be in a position to put up any structure therein. A counter has been filed by the landlords-respondents in this case to the above C.M.P. There it has been stated that the revision petitioner is putting up a building in survey No. 1027/1 of Kunnamkulam Village which is also covered by the notification and so the fact that a notification has been issued in November, 1983 is no reason to prevent construction of the building in the survey fields mentioned therein. The statement that the revision petitioner is putting up a building in a survey covered by the notification is not denied by him. So as it now stands it is not possible for me to deny eviction on the ground that the landlords is this case will not be allowed to put up any new structure in the property in view of the notification dated 9-11-1983. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further submits that in view of the Kerala Building R.1984 it will not be possible for the landlords to construct any building in their property. According to counsel as per R.15 a minimum space of 3 meters must be left on the front and back portions of the building. Since the total width of the property owned by the landlords is not sufficient to leave such space on either side, according to counsel, they cannot reconstruct any building and so the petition has to be dismissed. Since the total width of the property owned by the landlords is not sufficient to leave such space on either side, according to counsel, they cannot reconstruct any building and so the petition has to be dismissed. I am not impressed with this argument either because R.41 of the above Rules specifically states that the provisions contained in the 1984 Rules will not apply to building permits issued under the Rules of 1968. The landlords have obtained valid permits under the old rules and so the present rules will not stand against their putting up their building in pursuance to the permit already obtained by them. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Sufficient safeguards have been provided for in the order of the District Court protecting the tenant's right in the building to be constructed. Those directions will stand. The result, therefore is, the Civil Revision Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. The Revision Petitioner tenant is directed to put the landlords in possession of the petition schedule premises within a month from today. I make no order as to costs.