Judgment :- This is a petition under Article 227 of the Construction. Petitioner challenges Exhibit PS order passed by the revisional authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". 2. Respondents 1 to 4 were the owners of a building occupied by the petitioner. The building consisted of a row of rooms. The western-most room of that building was leased out to the petitioner. Landlords initiated proceedings under the Act as R.CO.P.12/1983 for recovering the shop room invoking the provisions contained in S.11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Exhibit P1 is the petition filed before the Rent Control Court. The property schedule to that petition was the western-most room of a building with 5 rooms facing Thodupuzha - Velliamaltam Road, bearing Door No. 197 of Ward XXI of Thodupuzha Municipality. 3. While proceedings under the Act were pending, Municipal authorities issued notice under S.250(2) of the Kerala Municipalities Act requiring the occupants and the owners to demolish the building to prevent danger to human lives, since the building was in a dilapidated condition. On receipt of the notice from the Municipal authorities, petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. 8590/1985 inter-alia praying for direction to the Municipal authorities to forbear from demolishing the building. Thodupuzha Municipality and the landlords were made respondents in that petition. Municipality entered appearance. No notice of the petition was sent to the landlords. When that petition came up for admission on 3-10-1985, this Court disposed of the same with the following observations:- "The apprehension of the petitioner that the demolition of the building without waiting for the disposal of R.C. OP. 12 of 1983 is likely to affect his plea for opting for allotment of an equal space in the reconstructed building has to be met by appropriate directions in that regard. It is elementary that the petitioner is entitled to raise a plea that he shall be entitled to exercise his option for allotment of equal space in the reconstructed building. That entitlement of the tenant cannot be defeated by proceedings initiated under a different statute. It is elementary that the petitioner is entitled to raise a plea that he shall be entitled to exercise his option for allotment of equal space in the reconstructed building. That entitlement of the tenant cannot be defeated by proceedings initiated under a different statute. It is made clear that the action taken by the Municipality for demolition of the building due to the alleged state of utter disrepair of the building will not in any manner affect the right of the petitioner as a tenant to claim that he is entitled for allotment of equal space in the reconstructed building if after the demolition of the building, the landlord reconstructs the same". Thereafter, landlords did not press R.C.O.P.12/1983 and, the Rent Control Court dismissed it as not pressed. Before that petition was dismissed as not pressed, petitioner herein filed LA. 2159/1985 in R.C.OP.12/1983 praying for issuing necessary orders protecting the rights of the petitioner to have first option to have an equivalent space of accommodation in the reconstructed building. That application was also dismissed by the Rent Control Court. Petitioner challenged the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing R.C.O.P.12/1983 in appeal before the appellate authority. That authority by Exhibit P7 order, while confirming the order of dismissal of the main petition, directed the landlords to reconstruct the building within one year and to allot suitable accommodation for the tenants in the reconstructed building on payment of fair rent. Landlords questioned the decision of the appellate authority by preferring revision R.C.R.P.2/1957 before the District Court. The learned District Judge allowed that revision petition, 4. Main reasons relied on by the revisional court for allowing the revision petition preferred by the landlords are that the eviction of the present petitioner was sought not only under S.11(4)(iv), but also under S.11(4)(iii) on the ground that he is having in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for the requirement in the same town and that landlords recovered that building not by virtue of any order passed by the Rent control Court under S.11(4) (iv) of the Act. Only if the tenant was directed to put the landlords in possession of the building for reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act, can the tenant claim the benefits of the provisos to that clause. Only if the tenant was directed to put the landlords in possession of the building for reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act, can the tenant claim the benefits of the provisos to that clause. Independent of the last provisos to S.11(4)(iv), no tenant has got a right to have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the decision of this Court in O.P.8590/1985 should control the rights of the parties and consequently landlords are bound to allow petitioner to exercise the first option to have an equal space allotted to him in the reconstructed building. In O.P. 8590/1985, landlords were made respondents 2 to 5. But, they were not served with notice of that petition. Without affording them an opportunity of being heard, this Court disposed of that Original Petition. So, the observations made by this Court in that judgment cannot bind the landlords. Consequently, no right can be claimed by the petitioner based on the decision of this court in O.P.8590/1985 against the landlords. 6. Independent of the provisions contained in the Act, no tenant is having the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent. No provision of law or decision taking a contrary view has been brought to my notice by counsel representing the petitioner. A tenant who has been directed to put the landlord in possession of the building for the purpose of reconstruction under S.11(4)((iv) is having the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him. If the order of eviction was ordered even under any other provision of S.11 of the Act, the tenant so evicted will not have any such right as against the landlord. In the instant case, eviction was sought not only under S.11(4)(iv), but also under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act. Since proceedings under the Act happened to be dismissed as not pressed, one is at a loss to understand how S.11(4)(iv) will come into play. 7. Before any order could be passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11 of the Act, building happened to be demolished by the Municipal authorities in exercise of their powers under 8.250(2) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, when the building has been demolished can the landlord-tenant relationship continue thereafter? 7. Before any order could be passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11 of the Act, building happened to be demolished by the Municipal authorities in exercise of their powers under 8.250(2) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, when the building has been demolished can the landlord-tenant relationship continue thereafter? Learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the tenancy would not come to an end even on the destruction of the building and so, the petitioner should be deemed to be the tenant under respondents 1 to 4. Learned counsel is not in a position to state as to whether petitioner will continue to be tenant of the site of the building, which was demolished, or whether the tenant of the newly constructed building. It is admitted that the landlords have put up a new construction. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in George v. Peter (1990(2) KLT 187) to support his contention that the tenancy right will continue in respect of the site in which the old building stood. In that case, a building, which was leased out to the tenant, was pulled down by the Municipal authorities. Immediately thereafter, the tenant approached the court by filing a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the landlord from entering into the site where the building stood and to prevent him from putting up any building thereon. This Court took the view that the lease was of the building demolished and the site where it stood and in that view, granted the plaintiff a decree restraining the defendant (landlord) from entering into and putting up new buildings or structures of any kind in the plaint schedule property or altering the nature and conditions of the plaint schedule property in any manner till the tenancy created in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the demolished shop room subsists in relation to the plaint schedule property subject to all the rights and liabilities of the parties as landlord and tenant. By granting this decree, this Court did not permit the landlord to put up any structure in the site of the old building. According to me, this decision has no application to the facts of this case. By granting this decree, this Court did not permit the landlord to put up any structure in the site of the old building. According to me, this decision has no application to the facts of this case. The property schedule to the petition filed before the Rent Control Court was the western-most room of a building having 5 rooms facing Thodupuzha - Vellimatlam Road. Only the room was scheduled to the petition. The site was not included. The pleadings in this case and the exhibits produced will not go to show that the tenancy was in relation to the site of the shop room as well. A Division Bench of this court in Sidharthan v.Ramadasan (1984 KLT 538) took the view that where the subject matter of a lease like the building is totally destroyed, the tenant is not entitled to squat on the ground where the Building stood or construct a new building in its place or require the landlord to put up a new structure. In this case, the structure alone was leased out, not the land underlying it. When the structure was destroyed, tenant cannot claim any right under the defunct lease. It is the admitted case that the building, which was leased to the petitioner, was pulled down. On account of the pulling down of the building, the lease was extinguished. Thereafter, no right as lessee of the building, which was pulled down, can be put forward by the petitioner. Further on the site of the old building, a new building has been constructed. Petitioner cannot claim any leasehold interest on this new building. Since new building has been put up in the area covered by the old, the decision in George v. Peter cannot have any relevance to the issues raised here. 8. As stated earlier, landlords did not get recovery of the building pursuant to an order passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. Virtually the Rent Control Court passed no order under the Act. By the demolition of the building, the lease was determined. Landlords constructed new building in the property. Thereafter, petitioner cannot claim any right as a lessee. So, the claim put forward by him invoking the last proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act is ill-conceived. 9. No other point arises for consideration in this Original' Petition. By the demolition of the building, the lease was determined. Landlords constructed new building in the property. Thereafter, petitioner cannot claim any right as a lessee. So, the claim put forward by him invoking the last proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act is ill-conceived. 9. No other point arises for consideration in this Original' Petition. Revisional Court, while exercising the powers under S.20 of the Act, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in reversing the order passed by the appellate authority. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs.