Point of Law: Section 11(4)(ii) of Act reads landlord may apply to Rent Control Court for an order if tenant uses building in such a manner to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently.

ORDER :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

The revision petitioner is the tenant. The first respondent/landlord filed R.C.P. No.231/2014 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-1), Kozhikode against the petitioner and the second respondent herein/tenants for eviction under Section 11(3) & 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, “the Act”). The Rent Control Court dismissed that petition. In the appeal preferred by the first respondent/landlord as R.C.A.No.120/2016, the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Kozhikode, reversed the order of dismissal and ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner/tenant, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act, has filed this revision petition.

2. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the tenant of a building belonging to the first respondent/landlord. The second respondent is the co-tenant. The revision petitioner/tenant is an artist and he is occupying the staircase room described as the petition schedule room from 2005 onwards. There is no dispute regarding the tenancy arrangement and rate of rent.

3. The pleadings relevant for the disposal of this case are as follows:

There was a stipulation at the time of entrustment that the tenants will have no right or authority to change the nature and lie of the building. In contravention of that stipulation, the tenants have removed the collapsible shutter situated in the front portion of the room and in its place, a rolling shutter has been set up. Further, the tenants have also laid grills on the parapet wall adjoining the staircase room. The first respondent/landlord alleged that the constructions made by the tenants in the tenanted premises have reduced the value and utility of the building materially and permanently and thereby, they are liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The revision petitioner/tenant opposed the rent control petition, contending that they have neither removed the collapsible gate nor set up a rolling shutter. The averment that grill was fitted on the parapet wall was also denied. According to the revision petitioner-tenant, the rolling shutter and the grill on the parapet were in existence at the time of the entrustment and no damage has been caused to the property on account of the act of the tenant. It was further contended that the landlord had recently attempted to set up an electric meter in the petition schedule room for and on behalf of another tenant and the revision petitioner did not accede to his demand and it is on the basis of the ill-will that the landlord has come up with the rent control petition. The Rent Control Court, after appreciating the testimony of PW1, RW1 and CW1 as well as the documentary evidence as Exts.A1, A2, C1 & C2, found that even if the tenant has replaced the collapsible shutter with the rolling shutter, it cannot be said that the value and utility of the building has been reduced. It was further found that the landlord could not prove as to why the collapsible shutter is more advantageous than a rolling shutter. The trial court found that the construction of the grill on the parapet also cannot be said to be reducing utility or value of the building materially and permanently. Further, the question of bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act put forth by the landlord was answered against the landlord and the Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petition accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In appeal, the claim of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was relinquished by the landlord. The main grievance was only in respect of the claim under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The appellate authority, after reconsidering the evidence, reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and allowed eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel for