LAWS(SC)-2005-8-73

G REGHUNATHAN Vs. K V VARGHESE

Decided On August 23, 2005
G.REGHUNATHAN Appellant
V/S
K.V.VARGHESE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The tenant is before us. He is the tenant of a building governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called "the Act"). He took on rent a room in the building belonging to the respondent-landlord. He executed an unregistered, insufficiently stamped rent deed on 5.9.1988 which was accepted by the landlord. He entered into possession thereunder. The lease was taken for the purpose of conducting a gold and silver jewellery shop. As per the rent deed, the term of the lease was 15 years. The rent payable was rs. 750/- a month. A sum of Rs. 85,000/- was given to the landlord as security. That amount was to be returned to the tenant when he vacated the room. The monthly rent of Rs. 750/- was to be paid by the 5th of the succeeding month. The tenant was given the right to install electrical fittings and to take water and telephone connections. He had the right to install all necessary instruments or equipments in the room for the purpose of gold and silver business.

(2.) Disputes seem to have arisen immediately thereafter. The tenant did not tender the rent that fell due on 5.10. 1988. He removed a door and three windows from the walls of the room and closed up those openings. He cut-off the rafters in the front to a length of two feet. He lowered the level of the floor by one foot. He erected two pillars touching the walls and fixed a rolling shutter in front of the shop. These were done without the written permission of the landlord.

(3.) The landlord issued a notice in terms of the proviso to Section 11 (2) of the Act. He called upon the tenant to pay the rent in arrears. The tenant failed to tender the rent. He filed an application R. C. P. No. 2 of 1990 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant. He Invoked Section 11 (2) of the Act pleading that the tenant had not paid or tendered the rent due by him for the period from 5.10. 1988 to 31.12.1990 in spite of the statutory notice. He also relied on the ground under Section 11 (4) (ii) of the Act. He alleged that the tenant had used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently. His case was that by removing the door and the windows and by his other acts the tenant has incurred the liability to be evicted under Section 11 (4) (ii) of the act. The tenant resisted the application. He pleaded that the landlord did not cooperate with him in getting electricity and water connections and refused to issue receipts for the rent he tendered. Therefore, he had not paid the rent. He had not done anything in the building which, materially affected the value or utility of the building. In fact, what he had done, had only made the building safe and enhanced its value. He pleaded that he was not liable to be evicted. He also deposited the rent that was in arrears so as to enable him to contest the proceedings.