Judgment :- Thomas, J. A tenant has been evicted pursuant to the order of Rent Control Court which upheld landlord's claim that the building needs reconstruction. But after eviction, the landlord, instead of reconstructing the building, used it for conducting a business for her son. Now the landlord is directed to re-induct the tenant in the building and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. This revision is against the judgment of the District Court which directed the landlord as above. 2. Though the application for eviction was filed on three distinct grounds (arrears of rent, subletting and need to reconstruct), landlord finally got the order of eviction only on the ground that the building needs reconstruction. During the tendency of proceedings, original tenant died and his legal representatives are respondents 1 to 9. A condition attached to the order of eviction was that ground floor of the new building should be let out to respondents 1 to 9 on fair rent. As the period of one year for reconstruction of the building since eviction was over, landlord got it extended by one more year. However, she did not commence reconstruction, nor did she pull down the existing building. Instead she allowed her son to occupy the existing building to do some business. It was then that respondents approached Rent Control Court for appropriate directions. 3. Justification for not commencing reconstruction of the building is that her financial position has been eroded. According to the landlord, she had to find out some source of income for her living and hence she allowed her son to do business in the premises. Alternatively, she submitted that respondents do not really need accommodation in the building, whether in the existing one or in the reconstructed one, since most of them are otherwise employed now. 4. Rent Control Court, strangely, accepted all such excuses and dismissed the tenant's application for appropriate directions to be issued to the landlord. But learned District Judge reversed the order and passed the impugned direction. 5. 4. Rent Control Court, strangely, accepted all such excuses and dismissed the tenant's application for appropriate directions to be issued to the landlord. But learned District Judge reversed the order and passed the impugned direction. 5. Learned District Judge expressed his view that "once an order for eviction on the ground of reconstruction is passed, the landlord is bound to carry out reconstruction within the time allowed, failing which the landlord shall suffer penalisation as well as she will be bound by law to return possession of the building also to the tenant who will continue the occupation under the old terms of rental arrangement". Learned District Judge further observed that the plea of the landlord that she has no means to reconstruct "is an affront to the directions given by the court". Here it is contended that the aforesaid observations are not in consonance with law. According to the counsel, it is an excessive exercise of jurisdiction in allowing the tenant to re-occupy the building. 6. To understand the range of Rent Control Court's power to give such directions, S.11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has to be examined. According to the counsel, it is an excessive exercise of jurisdiction in allowing the tenant to re-occupy the building. 6. To understand the range of Rent Control Court's power to give such directions, S.11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has to be examined. The clause reads thus: "A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building (iv) if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bonfire to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the court that he has the plan and license, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction: 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 willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time: Provided further that the court shall have power at anytime 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:" When a landlord takes back possession of his building from tenant on the ground under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act, the presumption is that landlord persuaded Rent Control Court to believe that he was prepared to reconstruct the building and he has the ability (financial and otherwise) to put up the new edifice in accordance with the pre designed plan. If the landlord turns volte-face during post eviction period contending that he ceased to have the ability to reconstruct, then also the court can presume that landlord is trying to outwit the tenant as well as the court. Not that there would never arise a situation for the landlord to become pauper due to any misfortune during the post eviction period. Not that there would never arise a situation for the landlord to become pauper due to any misfortune during the post eviction period. Even if such a catastrophe happens, the evicted tenant cannot become helpless. A reading of the clause extracted above would transmit a message that the court is equipped with all powers to meet a contingency in which the evicted tenant is denied of the benefit of first option envisaged therein. The most appropriate order which a court can pass if the existing edifice remains without being pulled down is to direct the landlord to put the tenant back in possession thereof. It would be a tragedy if court becomes powerless, at a later stage, to give effect to is own order that tenant shall have the right of first option to get accommodation in the reconstructed building. The court must make every endeavour to avert such a tragic situation. 7. Difficulty comes when the landlord does not reconstruct after pulling down the existing edifice or adopts dilatory tactics in reconstructing the new edifice. Even then the court has a duty to protect the interest of the tenant who was evicted pursuant to the court's order. True, the tenant who has to pay higher rent for another building during the interval can be allowed to realise the excess rent amount from the contumacious landlord. That alone may not be sufficient in all cases. One of us has held in Ratnakara Shenoy v. Rent Controller (1989 (2) K.L.T. 690) that Rent Control Court has wide powers to issue directions to contain the strategy of the landlord who stalls the tenant's right of re-entry. "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". There is nothing which prevents the court from permitting a tenant to construct the building in accordance with the plan in a case where there is no other alternative to preserve the tenant's statutory right of first option to get accommodation. Of course, the building after reconstruction would belong to the landlord. The tenant in such a case can be allowed to adjust the cost incurred by him in the rent which accrues due later. The Division Bench has approved the ratio in the said decision (vide judgment dated 9-12-1991 in C.R.P. Nos. Of course, the building after reconstruction would belong to the landlord. The tenant in such a case can be allowed to adjust the cost incurred by him in the rent which accrues due later. The Division Bench has approved the ratio in the said decision (vide judgment dated 9-12-1991 in C.R.P. Nos. 2306, 2307 & 2308/91). 8. Of course, the observation of the learned District Judge that once an order for eviction on the ground of reconstruction has been passed the landlord is bound to carry out reconstruction within the time allowed, failing which the landlord shall suffer penalisation, might have been broadly stated. Such a consequence need not be the necessary and inevitable corollary without exception in all cases of failure to reconstruct. Any way, no such exception has been made out in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.