The court clarified the grounds for recovery under S.11(3) and S.11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, emphasizing the requirement for bona fide claims and the need for actions to materially and permanently reduce the value or utility of the building.

K. Sreedharan, J.

1. Tenant of building bearing Door No. T. C. 38/1293 of Trivandrum Corporation is the petitioner in O. P. No. 8311 of 1988. Landlord of that building has preferred O.P. No. 962 of 1989. These petitions arise out of R.C.P. No.4 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum. Landlord initiated the proceedings for eviction of the tenant under S.11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, on the side of the landlord P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A7 were proved. P.W. 1 is the landlord. Tenant got hereself examined as C. P. W. 1. On an appreciation of the entire evidence let in by the parties, the Rent Control Court allowed the landlord to recover the building under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The claim for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) was virtually given up by the landlord. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Control Court the tenant took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding entered by the Rent Control Court under S.11(3) of the Act, But it sustained the order of eviction passed under S.11(4)(ii). Both landlord and tenant challenged the decision of the appellate authority in revision before the District Court. Landlord's revision petition was filed more than one year and four months after the decision of the appellate authority. The revision petitions were disposed of by the District Court by a common order. District Court while disposing of the revision petition filed by the landlord, refused to interfere with the appellate authority's order refusing recovery under S.11(3) of the Act on the ground of delay in filing the revision and that the landlord failed to substantiate the grounds for recovery under S.11(3) of the Act. The tenant's revision petition was dismissed holding that the tenant is to put the landlord in possession of the building by virtue of S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. Petitioners in these original petitions question the validity of the order passed by the Revisional Court.

2. According to the landlord, petitioner in O. P. No. 962 of 1989 the appellate authority and the revisional court Were in error in refusing recovery under S.11(3) of the Act. The revisional court was not, it is argued, justified in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of limitation. Under S.11(4)(ii) the landlord was found entitled to recover the building. Since the final order of the appellate authority was in favour of the landlord in the sense that recovery has been ordered, it is contended that even without filing a separate revision, the landlord could have sustained the order of eviction, under S.11(3) of the Act as well. In this sense the District Court was not justified in treating the revision petition filed by the landlord as one barred by limitation.

3. The tenant challenges the order passed by the authorities below on the ground that the gate put up by tenant for ingress and egress to and from the road has not gone to destroy or reduce the value or utility of the building materially or permanently. Consequently it is argued that the authorities below were not justified in allowing the landlord to recover the building under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act.

4. I will first deal with the petition filed by the landlord. Ext. P1 in O.P.No. 8311 of 1988 M is the petition filed by the landlord before the Rent Control Court. The averments made therein, for making out a claim for recovery of the building under S.11(3) of the Act are as follows:

"8. It is with a view of residing as well as to conduct the profession of the petitioner and her family members the petitioner has purchased the said building which is very much suited for conducting the goldsmiths shops as it is very close proximity to Chalai Bazar and other goldsmith shops. 14. The Petitioner requires the building for the bona fide residence of the petitioner's daughter and her family and also for