JUDGMENT 1. This Original Petition is by the landlord/petitioner in a Rent Control Petition. He filed the petition to evict the tenant, viz. the first respondent on grounds available under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(2)(b) as well as under S.11(4)(iv). On appeal, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the finding under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Revision against the appellate order was also dismissed. The orders of the Rent Control Court, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are produced as Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively. This petition is filed by the landlord to quash Exts. P-2 and P-3 orders, The only ground urged before me is that the finding of the appellate authority, in setting aside the finding under S.11 (4) (iv), is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the records. 2. Petitioner had five cents of land in which he constructed two buildings one on the southern portion and the other on the northern portion of the land. The eviction with which we are concerned relates to the building situated in the northern portion. The Rent Control Court held that the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and that the petitioner has satisfied the court that he has the plan and licence, and the ability to build. But the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the plan and the licence produced in the case related to the building situated in the southern portion and not to the schedule building which is situated in the northern portion. In that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed. In revision, the conclusion of the appellate authority was upheld. The Rent Control Court examined the commission report from which it came to the conclusion that the scheduled building is in such a condition as to need reconstruction. It also came to the conclusion that there was a plan and licence produced by the petitioner, even though not at the time of filing the petition, which convinced the Court that the, petitioner held necessary licence and plan for the construction. I am not concerned with the capacity of the petitioner to reconstruct the building, for the same is not in dispute here. I am not concerned with the capacity of the petitioner to reconstruct the building, for the same is not in dispute here. The Appellate Authority vacated the finding of the Rent Control Court and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had three rooms in the southern portion of the land which were given to two persons, one Govinda Pillai and one Rajan. Sri Govinda Pillai was f conducting a ration shop and a typewriting institute in the two rooms and Sri Rajan was conducting a barbershop in the 3rd room. Petitioner had taken proceedings to vacate those persons in 1975 and, in that connection, obtained a plan and licence in respect of that building and produced in that case which was again produced before the Rent Control Court in the proceedings taken in 1978. It is on that finding, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the finding Of the Rent Control Court that there is a plan and licence in respect of the schedule building cannot be relied upon. The revision petition filed against this, order was also dismissed. 3. Under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act, a landlord can 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 and 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. The requirements, therefore, are (a) the building must be in such condition that it needs to be reconstructed; (b) the landlord must prove that he requires bona fide to reconstruct the building; (e) he must satisfy the Court that he has the necessary plan and licence, if any required; (d) he must have the ability to rebuild and (e) he must satisfy the Court that the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. All these has been satisfied except the fact that he has the licence and the plan. It may not be necessary to file the plan and licence along with the petition. It is sufficient if the plan and licence is produced at any time before evidence is taken. All these has been satisfied except the fact that he has the licence and the plan. It may not be necessary to file the plan and licence along with the petition. It is sufficient if the plan and licence is produced at any time before evidence is taken. But whether the plan and licence is required itself, will depend upon the wording of the section. It may be that in other states where the Act does not provide for such a requirement, the plan and licence may not be required, for in such case it is sufficient if the landlord satisfies the Court that the building is in such a condition that it requires reconstruction and the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same. The first condition relates to the nature of the building and the second relates to the need of the landlord. But under S.11(4)(iv) an additional requirement is also provided, viz. that the landlord must satisfy the Court that he has the plan, and licence. When such a requirement is stipulated under the Act, that requirement cannot be dispensed with based on decisions rendered under different enactments. Therefore, the only question, in this case is whether the plan and licence has been produced or not. The Rent Control Court stated that the plan and licence has been produced, viz. Exts. A-4 and A-8. A-4 is a certificate and A-8 is a plan. The Rent Control Court examined the case and found that there are two buildings, one on the southern portion of the land and the other on the northern portion. The evidence of the landlord as P.W. 1 shows that there are three rooms in the southern building. A ration shop is conducted in one of the rooms, typewriting institute in the second room and a barbershop in the 3rd room. The first two rooms are in the possession of one Govinda Pillai and the 3rd room is in the possession of one Rajan. The landlord also admitted as P.W. 1 that he has filed two petitions to evict these two tenants and the plan was produced in those proceedings. Ext. A-8 plan shows that a terraced building with two rooms only is proposed to be constructed and the area comes to 85 sq. m. The extent shows only a little over two cents. The landlord also admitted as P.W. 1 that he has filed two petitions to evict these two tenants and the plan was produced in those proceedings. Ext. A-8 plan shows that a terraced building with two rooms only is proposed to be constructed and the area comes to 85 sq. m. The extent shows only a little over two cents. The proposed area forms the southern most portion of the property claimed by the landlord Ext. A-8 was produced by the petitioner to evict the tenants in the southern building in 1975. The door numbers of the rooms shown in Ext. A-8 are, 488, 489 and 489(i). There is no evidence to show that those numbers relate to the schedule building. Petitioner's case is that the building in the southern side is covered by door numbers 489 and 489(i) and the schedule building is covered by door No. 488. Therefore, it is submitted that even though the plan was produced in 1975 in the case for eviction of the two tenants in the southern building, it covers the schedule building also-This is a disputed question "of fact. 4. Exts. P-2 and P-3, on the reasoning given cannot be considered in any way vitiated. The conclusion in Exts. P-2 and P-3 are also a plausible conclusion and this Court will not function as an appellate Court in examining these aspects. The question whether plan itself is required need not be considered further, for S.11(4)(iv) specifically provides :that the Court must be satisfied that the landlord has plan and licence for reconstruction of the building. If the landlord does not reconstruct the building, the Court has power, at any time, to issue directions regarding reconstruction of the building to give effect to the order, and to give a direction for reconstruction, plan and licence will be required at that time. That may be the reason why plan and licence is insisted upon in S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act. In view of the above, I find no illegality or irrationality in Exts. P-2 and P-3. This Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed.