Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. This revision is against the direction of the courts below in granting eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) .

2. One Velunni (hereinafter referred to as the original tenant), of whom the revision petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs, took the tenanted premises on lease from the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- by a registered lease deed of 1952. After the death of the original landlord, the first respondent applied for an order of eviction against the original tenant alleging that rent from February, 1979, had not been paid. It was further alleged that he had removed the wall between two rooms as well as the wall, door and window of another room of the petition schedule building, as a result of which, the security of the building was lost and its value and utility were reduced materially and permanently. Proceedings were initiated after serving a notice demanding vacant possession of the building, which met with a reply stating that the allegation regarding alterations and damage are false.

3. The original tenant resisted the petition contending that he had paid Rs.500/-as advance under an agreement for sale of the premises by the first respondent and O.S.No.108/80 filed by him for specific performance of that agreement was pending. It was further contended that rent was not in arrears and the removal of the wall did not amount to destructive alteration and it was only an ameliorative alteration, which enhanced the utility and convenience of the building, where he was running a hotel.

4. In the light of the oral evidence tendered by PWs.1 and 2, RW1 and documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B4, the Rent Control Court considered the points which were raised for trial and granted eviction under Section 11(2)(b). Eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) was declined. Order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was vacated on deposit of arrears. The first respondent took the matter in appeal against the rejection of the prayer for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii). The appeal was allowed. However, this Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.

5. After remand, the trial court appointed an Expert Commissioner for obtaining a report on the alleged damage to the building. Thereafter, PWs.3 & 4 and RW2 were examined. Exts.A5 to A7, Exts.C1 & C1(a) were marked. Considering the entire evidence, a fresh order of eviction was passed under Section 11(4)(ii) by the Rent Control Court. Appeal by the revision petitioners has not been successful. Thus, they have come up in revision.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent landlord. We have also perused the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petition schedule building was being used for running a hotel and the revision petitioners' predecessor-in-interest would not cause such damage to the premises to the extent of endangering occupation thereof. He would further point out that lease was of the year 1952 and the building has been in existence since long before that. According to him the construction of the building is not as per the modern standards and by the passage of time, the building has become weak. That being the position, the tenant cannot be penalised for the damage reported by the Commissioner; so submitted the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the act of removal of the wall, door and window etc. can be said to be only bonafide and the said act only enhanced the convenience of the premises for being used as a hotel.

8. It is well settled that demolition of any wall in