Abdul Rehim, J.

The revision petition is filed against concurrent findings of the courts below, ordering eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The revision petitioners herein, were respondents (Cr: petitioners) 1 to 5 before the Rent Control Court who along with respondents 4 to 7 herein, who are legal representatives of late Sri. Krishnan, the original tenant of the schedule premises. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the petitioners before the Rent Control Court, who are the legal representatives of late Sri. Kunjimoosa, the original landlord. The lease came into existence in the year 1964 by virtue of Ext.A1 registered lease deed, executed between late Sri. Kunjimoosa and late Sri. Krishnan. Subsequent to death of Sri. Kunjimoosa the property devolved upon respondents 1 and 2 herein, who were represented before the trial court by the 3rd respondent-their mother, by virtue of power of attorney executed by respondents 1 and

2. The revision petitioners herein are referred as tenants and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are referred as landlords in the remaining part of the Judgment for the sake of brevity.

2. Eventhough eviction was ordered both under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii). Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision petitioners conceded that the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is not seriously assailed, because the revision petitioners are willing to pay off arrears of rent with interest due thereon and they are intending to file petition to set aside the order, under Section 11(2) (c). Hence we proceeded to consider sustainability of the order of eviction issued under Section 11(4)(ii), which stands confirmed through the order of the appellate authority.

3. The allegations of the landlords inter alia are that, inspite of the specific terms in Ext.A1 agreement to the effect of restraining the tenants from causing any damage to the building, compound wall and gate, the tenants have demolished the compound wall which existed in between the tenanted premises and the property subsequently acquired by the tenants, which is situated on the western side of the petition schedule property. They have also removed the iron gate erected at the entrance of the petition schedule premises which is abutting to Aluva-Perumbavoor public road, on its north, and re-fixed the same on the property acquired by them, situated on the western side. Consequently it is alleged that the petition schedule premises as well as the property acquired by the tenants are lying as contiguous holdings without any physical boundary as not separately identifiable. Consequent to shifting of the gate the entrance to the petition schedule premises was closed and as a result access to the petition schedule premises can be possible only through the gate erected in the holdings of the tenants. It is alleged that, by virtue of the aforesaid material and permanent alterations carried out by the tenants there occurred considerable reduction in the value and utility of the petition schedule premises.

4. In the counter statement filed by the tenants, it is contended that after death of Sri. Krishna, respondents 1 to 5 are jointly conducting automobile workshop at the petition schedule premises and the property on its western side was purchased by late Sri. Krishnan in the year 1971, in order to expand activities of Motor Engineering Workshop (Automobile Workshop), since the workshop was granted with permission for repair of vehicles owned by the State Government. It is contended that the iron gate was shifted and re-located as entrance to the newly purchased property, with the consent obtained from the original landlord, late Sri. Kunjmoosa @ Moosa Vaidyar. It is also stated that after purchase of the property on the western side, a portion of the compound wall of the schedule premises on the western