Judgment :- 1. A landlord who evicted his tenant from the building pursuant to an order of eviction granted under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the Act') did not care to reconstruct the building, perhaps under the impression that the provisos to S.11(4)(iv) are not meant to be enforced. The evicted tenant, in the meanwhile, took another building on a much higher rent. He would have expected that on completion of the reconstruction of the new building, he could occupy the same since he has the first option under the Act to occupy the new building. But his expectations remained unfulfilled. He filed a petition before the Rent Control Court for appropriate directions under the said provisos. He made an offer that if the landlord fails to reconstruct the building for any reasons, he would carry out the reconstruction work on condition that the rent payable by him could be adjusted against the amount spent for reconstruction. In the alternative, he prayed for awarding damages equal to the excess rent which he is now paying on the building which he presently occupies. Further prayer is for imposition of fine on the landlord for wilfully neglecting to reconstruct the building. However, when the case was argued in the Rent Control Court, the tenant did not press for the relief to permit him to reconstruct the building at his cost. The Rent Control Court directed the landlord to reconstruct the building within one year and further directed him to pay damages to the tenant at the rate of Rs.710/- per month (being the difference between the rent which he is now paying and the earlier rent), if the landlord fails to reconstruct the building within the permitted time. The appeal and the revision filed by the landlord were dismissed. Hence this Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. 2. Facts, which are not disputed, are these: The rent of the building was Rupees forty per month. The order of eviction passed on the ground under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act was challenged by the tenant in revision before the District Court and in a second revision before the High Court. While dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, this Court directed the tenant to vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1982andthelandlordto reconstruct the building within eighteen months from the date of surrender. While dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, this Court directed the tenant to vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1982andthelandlordto reconstruct the building within eighteen months from the date of surrender. The tenant vacated the premises as directed by the High Court and moved to another building which belongs to a third person. The landlord, soon after getting vacant possession of the building, pulled it down, but did not take any other step to start reconstruction. The tenant's case that the rent of the present building is Rs. 750/- per month, though disputed by the landlord, was found to be true by the courts below. The stand of the landlord is that he could not take up the work of reconstruction due to high escalation of cost of construction. He estimated the cost to be around one lakh rupees at the time of filing the petition, whereas the present estimation exceeds Rupees five lakhs. So, he made a counter offer to the tenant as this: If the tenant advances four lakhs as a loan, he would start reconstruction of the building and the loan would be repaid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This offer was not given any serious consideration either by the tenant or by the three courts. Nor does it deserve any serious consideration. 3. S.11(4)(iv) of the Act enables a landlord to apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same. He would get an order of eviction only if he satisfies the court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. In order to protect the interest of such evicted tenants the statute inserted the third proviso which gives the right of first option to the tenant to occupy the reconstructed building. The legislature was aware of the possibility of landlords trying to thwart the said right by not reconstructing the building or by putting up the new structure in such a manner as to make it unsuitable for the tenant. The legislature was aware of the possibility of landlords trying to thwart the said right by not reconstructing the building or by putting up the new structure in such a manner as to make it unsuitable for the tenant. In order to safeguard the interest of the tenant, the legislature has included the first two provisos in the clause. They read as follows: "Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has wilfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time: Provided further that the Court shall have power at any time to issue directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction". 4. Imposition of fine on the landlord depends upon proof that the landlord has wilfully neglected to reconstruct the building within the time permitted. But award of damages or issuance of directions regarding reconstruction need not depend upon any such proof of wilful neglect. The landlord who takes possession of the building pursuant to an order of eviction for the ground under S.11(4)(iv) and demolishes it, cannot be heard to contend later that he does not have the financial resources to undertake the reconstruction. This is because the landlord must be deemed to have satisfied the Rent Control Court, before the order of eviction, that he has the ability to rebuild. The landlord in this case was prepared to reconstruct the building even in 1982, as he took possession of the building pursuant to the order of eviction. The escalation of cost of construction is not a phenomenon peculiar to this landlord or to this locality or to the particular year. No landlord can reasonably expect the cost of construction to remain steady or static for years. The escalation of cost of construction is not a phenomenon peculiar to this landlord or to this locality or to the particular year. No landlord can reasonably expect the cost of construction to remain steady or static for years. There is no justification in the stand that since cost of construction did not remain the same after eviction, he gave up the idea of reconstruction after evicting the tenant, and that too after pulling down the building. The Rent Control Court has wide powers to issue directions to contain the strategy of the landlord stalling the tenant's right of re-entry. Such powers are conferred by the provisos and hence it is the duty of the Rent Control Court to use such powers in appropriate cases and prevent mischief being perpetrated. Such powers include even the power to allow the affected tenant to reconstruct the building at his cost, if the landlord declines to reconstruct the building after pulling it down. The second proviso does not contain any restriction or limitation for the Rent Control Court to issue any direction in appropriate cases. The Rent Control Court has only done the right thing in this case in exercise of powers under the provisos and hence the orders under challenge do not warrant interference. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.