1. The revision petitioners/ landlords filed R.C.P. No. 4 of 1992 under S.11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965 for eviction of the respondents/ tenants. The Rent Control Court found that there was no landlord-tenant relationship and that the petitioners were not able to prove that there is alteration of the building so as to effect eviction under S.11(4)(ii). The Appellate Authority found that earlier in R.C.P. No. 187 of 1983 with regard to the same building, eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent and that finding was not challenged. The landlord-tenant relationship was found in that case. Therefore, the Appellate Authority held that finding of the Rent Control Court that there is no landlord-tenant relationship cannot be accepted. We agree with the above finding of the Appellate Authority. However, with regard to the finding on the ground of S.11(2)(b), the Appellate Authority agreed with the Rent Control Court that alterations made by the tenants enhanced the value of the building and therefore, they cannot be evicted under S.11(4) (ii).

2. S.11(4)(ii) reads as follows:

"11. Eviction of tenants

(4) .................................

(ii) if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently; or

.............

According to the petitioners, when the second petitioner visited the place he found that there were alterations in the building and, therefore, he filed a suit, O.S. No.1060 of 1989, before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram and obtained an order of injunction, restraining the tenants from reconstructing the building and demolishing the walls of the building. A Commissioner was appointed. The certified copy of the Commission Report was marked as Ext. A-1. On the basis of the evidence as well as the Commission Report the Appellate Authority found as follows:

" ....After admitting the document in evidence and after marking it as an item of evidence it is not fair on the part of the Rent Control Court to observe that there is no proper proof of that item of evidence. A reading of Ext. A-1 report clearly shows that the shop room bearing T.C. 39/634 has been totally renovated recently. The old walls have been pulled down and replaced by new walls. The old flooring was also removed and replaced by new flooring. The original roof was also dismantled and substituted by a new roof. Thus there was satisfactory evidence to show that the tenants recently renovated T.C. 39/634 and gave it a new look. True that the above acts of the tenants were not to the liking of the landlords. But it cannot be said that demolition of old walls of a shop room and replacing it with new walls or replacing of the old flooring completely with new flooring or replacing the old tiled roof with new asbestos roof were acts of waste which are likely to reduce the value or utility of the shop rooms materially and permanently. In my view those acts ordinarily enhance the value and utility of the shop room. It may be that such acts of the tenants are against the wishes of the landlord. But those acts cannot legitimately be described as acts intended to destroy the shop room or to reduce its value or utility materially and permanently. In my view those acts only enhance the value of the building although the tenants will be accountable to the landlord for the old materials. Since the tenants have effected those improvements against the wishes of the landlord and even ignoring their opposition they may not be entitled to any amount by way of compensation for such improvements."

The evidence would show that the original roof was dismantled and substituted by new roof. The old walls were replaced by new walls, old flooring was also removed and replaced by new flooring, old tiled roof was removed with new asbestos roof and shutters were put replacing the doors. All these would show that reconstruction was done and the old building as such was completely demolished. According to the la