The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's actions materially and permanently reducing the value of the property can justify eviction under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act, and compliance with the notice to quit under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act is essential for eviction proceedings.

1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. They applied in the court of the Rent Controller at Calicut for eviction of the respondent from the shop building rented out to him for a monthly rent. The petition was filed under S.11(4) of Act 16 of 1959 now replaced by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act); (arrears of rent and bonafide requirement for own occupation were also put forward by the landlord as grounds for eviction; but they have been found against by both the Controller and the appellate authority; the ground falling under S.11 (4) (ii) alone was pressed). The ground under S.11 (4) was also found against by the Controller; but on appeal, the learned Subordinate judge reversed that finding and ordered eviction, on the ground that the tenant used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value materially and permanently. But in revision the learned District judge has reversed the judgment of the appellate authority and dismissed the petition. Before the District judge mainly two contentions were raised by the tenant and they are:

.(i) that the tenancy has not been terminated by a notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the court has no jurisdiction to order eviction; and (ii) that the tenant has not used the building in such a manner as to reduce its value materially and permanently.

These contentions seem to have found favour with the learned District Judge. On a review of the position in all its relevant aspects I am led to the view that the learned District Judge, in revision has gone wrong in his finding that the tenant has not used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value materially and permanently and also that there was no proper notice to quit as contemplated in S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. On the first point, viz., whether the tenant has used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value materially and permanently, the contention of the landlord is that the western boundary of the property where the building stands has been obliterated with the result that the shop building is now tagged on to the godown and the western property belonging to a different person which also has been taken on rent by the present tenant. The owner of the western plot is one Krishna Menon. The western property, which lies contiguously with the eastern property which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, has been taken on lease by the present tenant and there a godown has been erected by him. He has now put up a corridor, marked O. P. E. F. in the plan, in-between the two plots in such a way that the space west of the western wall of the shop building which forms part of the property of the petitioners has been brought under the roof of the corridor and the roof itself touches the western wall of the shop building and the eastern wall of the godown. By virtue of the corridor the shop building and the godown have been locked up together so as to form one building for all outward purposes. The fact that the property of the petitioners extends further to the western wall of the building is not disputed. The learned District Judge himself has noticed this fact as is clear from his observation in the order that:

"It is now admitted that the boundary line between the two properties lies somewhere along that vacant space."

The vacant space referred to is the space lying in between the western wall of the shop building and the eastern wall of the godown. That the boundary line which runs along this vacant space has been obliterated by means of the roofed corridor is also conceded; but the contention of the landlord is that from that circumstance it is not possible to argue that the value and utility of the petitioners' building have been destroyed or reduced materially and permanently. I do not think this is a tenable contention. The fact cannot be disputed that the western bound