(1.) This revision under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is against the concurrent findings of the courts below, i.e., against the judgment in R.C.A.No.173/2014 dtd. 30/09/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (the RCAA), Vatakara, confirming the order of the Rent Control Court (the RCC), Nadapuram, in R.C.P.No.17/2011 by order dtd. 13/10/2014. The petitioner herein is the appellant before the appellate authority and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondents herein are the respondents before the appellate authority and the petitioners before the RCC. The parties in this petition will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
(2.) The petitioners/landlord moved the RCC seeking eviction under Sec. 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The petition schedule building, one constructed with wooden planks and a tiled roof, was let out to the respondent by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The tenanted premises is facing the road on the west. To the east of the tenanted premises, i.e., on the backside there is a vacant space. According to the petitioners, a few months before the filing of the R.C.P., the respondent without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners removed a few planks on the eastern wall of the building to create an entrance to the eastern side, where he has constructed a shed. Due to the act of removal of the wooden planks from the eastern wall, the value and utility of the building has been materially and permanently affected. Hence the R.C.P. under Sec. 11(4)(ii) of the Act.
(3.) The respondent/tenant denied the aforesaid allegations of the petitioners. He contended that the wooden planks on the eastern wall were removed with the permission of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and hence the latter cannot question him now. The removal of the planks has in no way affected the value or utility of the building. According to him, the R.C.P. is only a ruse for eviction.