The judgment established that the total destruction of leased property renders the lease void, and the lessee is not entitled to continue the lease or compel the landlord to reconstruct the building.

1. The first defendant in a suit for arrears of rent, for eviction and recovery of damages as well as for an injunction restraining the first defendant from constructing any unauthorised structures in the leased property is the appellant. The plaint schedule property and the workshop building therein belong to the plaintiff, Catholicos and Metropolitan, Malankara Church. The workshop was entrusted on lease to the first defendant on 121969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85/-. The first defendant was conducting a motor-workshop therein. A bus, KLK. 7475 belonging to the second defendant was brought to the workshop on 5 71969 for repairs. According to the plaintiff, the brake and engine of the vehicle were in disorder which fact was well-known to the defendants 1 and 2 and their servants. The plaintiff would allege that without taking necessary precautions, care or caution the vehicle when moved in the premises went out of control and hit against the workshop building. The building was completely destroyed. The plaintiff seeks to make liable defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the damages caused to the plaintiff by the alleged carelessness and negligence on their part and on the part of their servants. Though the plaintiff would state that he spent more than Rs. 5000/- for the reconstruction of the building and that he has suffered a loss to that extent, he limits his claim to Rs.4000/-. He sent a registered notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 14-7-1969. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the receipt of the notice the first defendant has put up a shed without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore he is entitled to get it demolished. The plaintiff has also got a case that the first defendant had defaulted payment of rent from August 1969 and therefore he had claimed arrears of rent together with 6 per cent interest. He further claimed a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from constructing new buildings and also claimed damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month. These reliefs are besides the claim for damages for Rs. 4000/-.

2. In resisting the suit the first defendant had contended that there was no total destruction of the building. He had also denied the construction of any unauthorised structure. What he did was only repair of the roof of the building. The bus was alleged to have been driven by the second defendant's employee at the time the accident happened and not by the first defendant or his employees. The first defendant also denied the forfeiture or termination of the lease as set up by the plaintiff. The construction effected after the accident is alleged to be with the consent of the plaintiff.

3. In the written statement the second defendant had contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first defendant's employees and that in any event the plaintiff is entitled to damages only to the extent of Rs. 1500/-. He had also contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action and that the suit was instituted without any bonafides and only to evict the first defendant from the premises.

4. The trial court held that the entire shed was destroyed by the accident and that defendants 1 and 2 were liable for damages jointly and severally. Damages were fixed at Rs. 4000/-, the amount claimed in the plaint. The court held that the lease had not been terminated. The first defendant was directed to remove the shed put up by him. The plaintiff was given a decree by the trial court for recovery of damages of Rs. 4000/- together with interest at 6% from defendants 1 and 2. Eviction of the first defendant as prayed for was disallowed. However, the first defendant was restrained from putting up any structures and further he was directed to remove the structure put up within 30 days from the date of the judgment. Against this decree and judgment the plaintiff filed A.S. 55/1973 to the extent that the decree and judgment of the trial court were against