ORDER : [P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.] 1. The legal representatives of the tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are the petitioners in this revision petition. 2. The tenant was occupying one out of the nine rooms in a commercial building. The landlord sought eviction of all the tenants in the building on the ground of re-construction. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction of the tenants and the said decision of the Rent Control Court was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Three among the tenants including the predecessor of the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No.2350 of 1990 before this Court challenging the concurrent orders of eviction. The said civil revision petition was disposed of with a direction that the landlord has to produce before the execution court a valid plan and licence for the re-construction of the building. 3. Pursuant to the direction in C.R.P.No.2350 of 1990, the landlord obtained a plan and licence for the re-construction of the building on 01.03.1991 and produced the same before the Court. On the landlord producing the plan and licence, three tenants including the predecessor of the petitioners filed an interlocutory application before the execution court for issuance of a commission, to ascertain whether it is possible to put up a building as proposed in the plan. The execution court dismissed the said application. The tenants aforesaid challenged the decision on the said interlocutory application before this Court in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991. The said civil revision petition was disposed of in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The compromise, as far as the present case is concerned, was that, the tenant would surrender vacant possession of the portion of the building occupied by him to the landlord and that the landlord would reconstruct the building and re-induct the tenant in shop No.6 shown in the plan. Pursuant to the order passed in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991, the tenant surrendered the portion of the building held by him to the landlord and the landlord, in turn, re-constructed the building. Though the re-construction was not strictly in accordance with the plan, the landlord re-inducted the tenant in shop No.6 shown in the plan. 4. Pursuant to the order passed in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991, the tenant surrendered the portion of the building held by him to the landlord and the landlord, in turn, re-constructed the building. Though the re-construction was not strictly in accordance with the plan, the landlord re-inducted the tenant in shop No.6 shown in the plan. 4. As per the plan, shop No.6 agreed to be given to the tenant was a shop measuring approximately 185 sq.ft., whereas, the shop in which the tenant was re-inducted was one measuring only approximately 125 sq.ft. There was only a staircase room in the plan on the south of shop No.6, whereas, in the re-constructed building, on the further south of the staircase room, the landlord constructed another shop room as well and the same was let out by him to one Narendran, who was not one among the tenants in the original building. According to the tenant, he needs at least 185 sq.ft. to carry out his business and in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.1688 of 1991, the landlord was obliged to provide him in the re-constructed building, a premises measuring at least 185 sq.ft. The tenant, therefore, preferred I.A.No.4190 of 1996 before the Rent Control Court seeking a direction to the landlord to provide him the deficit area of 65 sq.ft. also from the adjoining portions of the shop room to which he was re-inducted. The Rent Control Court dismissed the said application and the said decision was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The tenant challenged the decisions of the authorities in C.R.P.No.3021 of 2000. The said civil revision petition was allowed and I.A.No.4190 of 1996 was remitted to the Rent Control Court for fresh consideration, after permitting the tenant to take out a commission to get the relevant particulars of the re-constructed building and also after permitting the tenant to implead Narendran referred to above who was inducted by the landlord in the room adjoining the staircase. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.3021 of 2000, the tenant impleaded the person directed to be impleaded and also took out a commission to get the relevant particulars of the re-constructed building. Thereupon, after hearing the parties, the Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.4190 of 1996 again and the said decision was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Pursuant to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.3021 of 2000, the tenant impleaded the person directed to be impleaded and also took out a commission to get the relevant particulars of the re-constructed building. Thereupon, after hearing the parties, the Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.4190 of 1996 again and the said decision was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is against the said decisions of the authorities below that this revision petition is preferred by the legal representatives of the tenant. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant as also the learned counsel for the landlord. 7. The learned counsel for the tenant contended persuasively, placing reliance on the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991, that the tenant is entitled to a minimum area of 185 sq.ft. in the re-constructed building. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the authorities below turned down the said claim on the ground that the area allotted to the tenant is sufficient to carry out his business. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the area required by the tenant for his business is not a matter on which the court can render a finding, and inasmuch as C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991 was disposed of based on the compromise, the authorities below ought to have ensured that the tenant gets at least an area of 185 sq.ft. in the re-constructed building. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord supported the impugned orders, pointing out that a tenant in a proceedings under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act cannot claim in the re-constructed building, an area identical to the previous area as had been occupied by him in the original building, invoking the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv). It was argued by the learned counsel that since the building could not be re-constructed as proposed in the plan, the entitlement of the tenant under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) is only to have an area in the re-constructed building which is reasonably comparable to the area as had been occupied by him in the original building. It was argued by the learned counsel that since the building could not be re-constructed as proposed in the plan, the entitlement of the tenant under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) is only to have an area in the re-constructed building which is reasonably comparable to the area as had been occupied by him in the original building. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any case for the tenant that the premises allotted to him in the re-constructed building is not reasonably comparable to the premises that was originally occupied by him, the decisions of the authorities below cannot be said to be illegal. 9. The learned counsel for the tenant did not dispute the proposition that a tenant who is evicted from a building on the ground of re-construction is entitled to re-entry in the reconstructed building, only in respect of an area reasonably comparable to the area that had been originally occupied by him. But, according to him, the said proposition has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the landlord offered to the tenant an area measuring approximately 185 sq.ft. in the re-constructed building and the tenant accepted the same in terms of the compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991 and the claim made by the tenant is only that he is entitled to the area offered to him in the re-constructed building as mentioned in the compromise. 10. We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 11. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question whether the shop room allotted to the tenant is sufficient to conduct the business carried on by him, is not a question that could be adjudicated by the authorities under the Act. But, a close reading of the impugned orders would show that it is not on that basis that the authorities below have disposed of I.A.No.4190 of 1996. Instead, it is seen that I.A.No.4190 of 1996 was disposed of by the authorities below on the premise that the tenant has been re-inducted by the landlord to a premises which is reasonably comparable and corresponds to the premises originally occupied by him and therefore, no further orders are required to ensure compliance of the direction in the order of eviction for the re-entry of the tenant. 12. 12. The question that falls for consideration, therefore, is whether the tenant is entitled in the light of the compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991 to have a premises measuring 185 sq.ft. in the re-constructed building. 13. As noted, it is a case where the landlord secured an order for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(4(iv) of the Act, subject to the rider that the tenant shall have the first option to have the re-constructed building allotted to him and that the landlord should produce before the execution court, a valid plan and licence for the proposed construction. The fact that the landlord has obtained a valid plan and licence for the proposed construction and produced the same before the court pursuant to the order of eviction is not in dispute. In other words, the order obtained by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(4)(iv) has become final and binding on the tenant. As such, dehors the compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991, the landlord is obliged to provide the tenant only a portion of the re-constructed building, reasonably comparable to the premises as had been earlier occupied by the tenant in the original building. The tenant does not dispute this fact. The claim made by the tenant however is on the basis of the compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991. The compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991 does not provide that the landlord would give to the tenant an area measuring 185 sq.ft in the proposed building. Instead, the compromise only provides that the landlord would re-induct the tenant in Shop No. 6 shown in the plan. In other words, the essence of the compromise is that the landlord should re-induct the tenant in Shop No. 6 shown in the plan. The fact that the landlord has re-inducted the tenant in Shop No. 6 shown in the plan is not disputed by the tenant. The grievance voiced by the tenant in the interlocutory application is that the area of Shop No. 6 shown in the plan in which he is re-inducted is not as shown in the plan. The fact that there has been a reduction in the area of the shop room is not disputed by the landlord. As already noticed, the re-construction of the building was not in accordance with the plan. The fact that there has been a reduction in the area of the shop room is not disputed by the landlord. As already noticed, the re-construction of the building was not in accordance with the plan. The explanation offered by the landlord in the objection to I.A.No.4190 of 1996 for not constructing the building in accordance with the plan is that additional provisions had to be made in the building at the time of re-construction, viz, staircase room, generator room, switch board room etc. and in order to extend the said facilities for the benefit of the occupants, some changes had to be made in the plan. In Velayudhan v. Raichal Varghese, 1980 KLT 653 , this court has held that there is nothing in Section 11(4)(iv) which makes it obligatory on the landlord to re-construct the building exactly at the same site where the original building stood and that circumstances may arise where the court will have to take into account subsequent events not contributed by the landlord to make necessary alterations in the building. Be that as it may, in the case on hand, the tenant has no contention that the landlord has re-constructed the building otherwise than in accordance with the plan maliciously, with a view to reduce the area of the shop room to be allotted to the tenant. In the absence of any provision in the compromise stipulating that the landlord would provide the tenant with an area measuring 185 sq. ft in the re-constructed building and any explanation as to why the landlord could not re-construct the building as per the plan, and also in the absence of any claim by the tenant that the building was re-constructed maliciously with the intention of reducing the area to be allotted to the tenant, we are of the opinion that, based on the facts of the present case, the tenant is not entitled to claim a better right than what is conferred on him under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) on the strength of the compromise. 14. What remains to be considered is as to whether the premises in which the tenant was re-inducted is reasonably comparable to the premises originally occupied by him in the building from which he was evicted. 14. What remains to be considered is as to whether the premises in which the tenant was re-inducted is reasonably comparable to the premises originally occupied by him in the building from which he was evicted. As noted, the tenant has no case that the premises in which he was re-inducted is not reasonably comparable to the premises which was originally occupied by him. His case is only that he is entitled to the exact area as mentioned in the compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991. If that be so, according to us, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned decisions of the authorities below. The revision petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.