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 i