Kemal Pasha, J.

1. Whether the act of a tenant, in carrying out alterations to the rented building without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, when such alterations tend to trap the landlord in criminal liability, comes within the ambit of S.11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965? Whether the alteration of the facade of the building by the tenant without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, in such a manner as to destroy the antique beauty of a building situated in the heritage zone, will constitute a ground under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act? Whether the need of the landlord to start a 'home stay' in the building, can be projected as a bona fide need for own occupation within the scope of S.11(3) of the Act? These are the questions that come up for consideration in this Rent Control Revision.

2. The petitioner/tenant who stands directed by the Rent Control court, Kochi to put the respondents/landlords in possession of the scheduled shop room on the grounds under Sections 11(4)(ii) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 has unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam through R.C.A. No.42 of 2008.

3. The scheduled shop room, which forms part of a residential building that belonged to late George Chacko, devolved on these respondents, who are his legal heirs, on his death. The said building is abutting the 'Princess Street' commonly known as 'Loafers Corner' at Fort Kochi. 'Princess Street' is one of the oldest streets of Fort Kochi, known for its old, western style buildings. All the buildings abutting the street are specially notable for its antique beauty, still embracing the traditional values and culture left behind by the foreigners who had formerly occupied the area. Over the passing years, the locality has grown to be a paradise for tourists, both nationals and internationals. Being attracted by its heritage ambiance and antique beauty, foreign tourists in particular, are craving for a residential accommodation there and the area has virtually become a frequent hang-out for them. Because of the nearness of the St. Francis Church, Fort Kochi, and the ancient antique beauty of the buildings abutting the street, the government has included the area in the heritage zone, which is a 'prohibited area' and 'regulated' area within the meaning of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959.

4. On 6.5.2006, the first respondent, on noticing some hasty constructions by the tenant at the tenanted premises without the knowledge and consent of the landlords, and without any permission from the local authority and other competent authorities, the first respondent requested the appellant to desist from such acts; but his requests fell in deaf ears. Therefore, the first respondent, on 7.5.2006, filed a complaint before the Kochi Corporation complaining about the said illegal constructions. The Building Inspector visited the spot, and directed the appellant to stop such constructions, and subsequently a stop memo was also issued. Overlooking those directions, the appellant continued the constructions. By taking advantage of the fact that 13th and 14th of May 2006 were holidays, he carried out several modifications and alterations to the building by way of new constructions thereby changing the whole facade of the building. The planks and wooden materials from the front wall of the room were replaced with rolling shutters, which according to the landlords, have destroyed and reduced the value and utility of the building, materially and permanently. The landlords, after knocking all the doors for justice, filed O.S.No.2016 of 2006 before the Munsiff's court, Kochi for mandatory injunction as well as prohibitory injunction against the tenant, and the said suit stands decreed in favour of the landlords.

5. The third respondent is a widow who has a daughter to be maintained. She is in bona fide need of the building for starting a business in home-stay for accommodating fo