The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of genuine landlord's need for building reconstruction and the consideration of surrounding circumstances in determining the need for reconstruction.

1. Three landlords filed applications for evicting the petitioners, from the three rooms of the building in question belonging to them and taken on rent by the 1st petitioner, before the 6th respondent as B. R. C. Nos. 27, 28 and 32 of 1963. Certain common grounds were alleged by the landlords for directing the petitioners to put the landlords in possession, and therefore these applications were tried together with the consent of all the parties. The grounds in the applications for evicting the petitioners were:

(1) that the building needs reconstruction and the landlords bonafide require it for that purpose,

(2) that the tenants have materially and permanently destroyed the value and utility of the building, and

(3) that the 1st petitioner has transferred his right or sublet the rooms to the 2nd petitioner without the consent of the landlords.

2. The Rent Control Court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlords were entitled to recover possession of the building for the reason that the building needs reconstruction and that the petitioners committed acts of waste materially and permanently affecting the value of the building. The appellate court confirmed the order; the revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing these orders.

3. The main submission of the petitioners' counsel was that there was no waste as alleged by the landlords, that the building did not need any reconstruction and that there was no sub-letting or transfer by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner.

4. As regards the first point the finding of the Rent Control Court is to the effect that the 1st petitioner has removed the glass shutters of the windows of the 3 rooms and that would constitute waste. The court came to this conclusion solely on the basis of the judgment in appeal of the Subordinate Court in a suit instituted by the landlord in B. R. C. 32/63 as O. S.619/62 of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon to restrain the 1st petitioner by an injunction from removing glass shutters of the room belonging to him. The Munsiff's Court passed a decree refusing the injunction. There was an appeal from the decision. The judgment of the appellate court is marked Ex. P.2. There it was found that the glass shutters belonged to the plaintiff landlord, and that the 1st petitioner has no right to remove them and restrained him by an order of injunction from removing the same. It is stated that there was a further appeal to the High Court against this decree and this Court confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court on the ground that the glass shutters belonged to the plaintiff-landlord and therefore the 1st petitioner has no right to remove the same. Although the Rent Control Court found on the other evidence adduced in the case that the glass shutters did not belong to the landlords, the court was of the view that it was concluded by the judgment in appeal of the Subordinate Court, and that it cannot come to a different conclusion based on the other evidence in the case. The Court therefore found that the 1st petitioner has committed an act which permanently and materially reduced the value and utility of the building. The court also found that the 1st petitioner has demolished the wall which separated the rooms involved in B. R. C. 27 and 28 of 1963, and that that would constitute an act of waste. The appellate court upheld the contention of the landlords and entered findings substantially the same as those rendered by the Rent Control Court. In the revisional court these findings were upheld. It was contended that even on the basis of these findings, there was no waste committed. The submission was that the removal of the wall separating the two rooms involved in B. R. C. 27 and 28 of 1963 was not an act of waste as that did not permanently or materially reduce the utility or the value of the building. On the other hand respondents 1 to 5 submitted that si