N.K.Balakrishnan, J

1. The tenant is in revision. An order of eviction was passed against him by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction. Brief facts necessary for the case are as follows.

The petition schedule building was originally obtained by Choyi, the father of the revision petitioner from the original landlord. The respondent Sakeena and one Nazar purchased the petition schedule building from the original owner as per Ext.A1 document dated 17/10/1995. Nazar mentioned above, assigned his undivided half right in favour of the revision petitioner and his brother Santhosh Kumar. The respondent sought eviction contending that the revision petitioner being the tenant used the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently. The specific allegation made in paragraph (3) of the petition was that the revision petitioner removed the window panes, grills and walls of the building. The allegation that the building was used in such a manner so as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently, was stoutly denied by the revision petitioner. It was stated that the wooden frame with glasses in front of the room was eaten by white ants and so it was substituted by a new frame. It was done only by way of maintenance and the said act has only added strength and value to the building.

2. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady's husband was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. The commission report was marked as Ext.C1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. On evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found that the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) is unsustainable. He has also found that the eviction petition is unsustainable in view of the fact that, the revision petitioner's brother Santhosh Kumar who is a co-owner, was not impleaded and that his concurrence has not been obtained. Thus, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed.

3. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that since action for eviction can be instituted by one of the co-owners, the petition is maintainable. It was found that though the revision petitioner is also a co-owner of the petition schedule building, since there was no determination of the tenancy, he continues to be the tenant and as such, the petition is perfectly maintainable. It was also found that by removing the window panes, the value and utility of the building was materially and permanently reduced. Hence the impugned order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioner.

4. Shri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petition for eviction was filed by the respondent who is only a co-owner of the building seeking to evict the revision petitioner who is also another co-owner of the petition schedule building. It is also argued that the allegation made by the respondent that by removal of the window panes, grills etc, the value and utility of the premises were affected or reduced materially and permanently, is totally unacceptable, since the evidence would make it clear that by putting up new wooden frames with glasses it only added the value and look of the building. The fact that the revision petitioner is also the co-owner and as such he will not do any act so as to reduce its value and utility, should have been borne in mind by the learned appellate authority, it is argued. It is also pointed out that according to the respondent, the revision petitioner removed the grills and front glass frame etc, on the day just previous to the filing of the RCP. The RCP was filed on 10/12/2007 and on the same day the Commissioner inspected the property at 5.30 pm. It was observed by the Commissioner that at the time of in