The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, particularly S.11(2), S.11(4)(ii), and S.11(4)(v), in relation to rent arrears, cessation of occupancy, and reduction of building value and utility.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The tenant is the petitioner in this petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The landlord filed an application for eviction under sub-ss.2,3,4(ii) and 4(v) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority found that the rent was in arrears certainly from the year 1982 onwards and possibly even earlier and that possibility depending upon the decree in O.S.799 of 1983. Before the revisional court it was argued that the decree in O.S.799 of 1983 was reversed in appeal and that suit was dismissed. The Revisional Authority took note of that argument and found that even if the period covered by that suit were to be excluded, this was a case where the rent was clearly in arrears. I see no jurisdictional error committed by any of the authorities in coming to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to an order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act. No interference is called for with that order in this proceeding under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. The claim for eviction under S.11(4) (v) of the Act was made by the landlord on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for well over a period of one year prior to the date of the application. The tenant disputed that. On an appreciation of evidence in the case the Rent Controller held that there was no user of the premises by the tenant as contended by the landlord. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority confirmed that finding. On a revision filed by the tenant the revisional court also agreed with the conclusions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The case of the tenant was that he was doing business in hospital equipments which admittedly required the possession of a licence. The authorities found as a fact that the tenant had even failed to apply for renewal of the licence, that he was not carrying on any business in the petition schedule building for the requisite period under S.11(4)(v) of the Act. It appears that before the appellate authority when the appeal was pending, the tenant produced certain documents and filed an interlocutory application for accepting those documents in evidence. It is seen that this petition for acceptance of additional evidence was not even moved on behalf of the tenant with the result that the appellate authority did not have occasion to deal with these documents. In fact the District Court on a scrutiny found that there was not even an order obtained on the application for permission to adduce additional evidence before the appellate authority. But still the Revisional Authority took up those documents produced in the appeal and on a scrutiny of the same came to the conclusion that the said documents did not establish that the finding of Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for well over a period of one year prior to the date of the application for eviction was in any manner erroneous. The revisional authority on the other hand was inclined to the view that these documents substantiated the case of the landlord that the tenant had ceased to use the building as claimed by the landlord. On an anxious consideration of the relevant materials referred to in the orders of the authorities below in the light of the elaborate arguments raised before me by counsel for the parties. I am satisfied that no error warranting exercise of jurisdiction by this court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been made by the revisional authority when it confirmed the order of the appellate authority for eviction under S.11(4)(v) of the Act.

3. The claim for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act has been rejected by all the authorities and the landlord has not pursued that claim before this court. That claim therefore, does not arise.

4. The other ground on which eviction was granted by the Rent Controller was under S.11(4) (ii)