FRANCIS BUSINESS Vs. DAVIS BANK EMPLOYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Rent Control Revisions, namely, R.C.R. Nos. 465 of 2004 and 466 of 2004, are filed by the tenant in R.C.P. No. 40 of 2000 and R.C.P. No. 41 of 2000 respectively, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda. The Rent Control Petitions were filed by the respondent landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the petitions under Section 11(4)(ii). The ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was found against the landlord. The tenants filed R.C.A. Nos. 11 of 2002 and 12 of 2002, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur challenging the orders of the Rent Control Court. The appeals were dismissed. The Rent Control Revisions are filed challenging the common judgment of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The case of the landlord is that the shop rooms in question were leased out to the tenants on monthly rent. There are ten rooms in the main building, out of which five rooms belong to the respondent landlord and the other five rooms belong to his brother. The southernmost room is in the occupation of the tenant in R.C.P. No. 40 of 2000 and the next room on its northern side is in the occupation of the tenant in R.C.P. No. 41 of 2000. There is a stipulation in the rent deed that the tenants shall not cause damage or alterations to the building. On 12th and 13th February, 2000, which were holidays, the tenants demolished portion of the verandah on the front side of the rooms and constructed walls and put up asbestos sheets. Originally the verandah was having tiled roof. The tenants cut and removed a beam supporting the rafters and reapers. Since the beams and rafters were removed, damage was caused to the walls. Material alteration was caused to the front elevation and structure of the building due to the illegal acts of the tenants. Attempt was made to construct walls on the front side and to place shutters. The landlord filed O.S. No. 317 of 2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda against the tenants for an injunction restraining them from making any further construction. The landlord contended that the tenants used the building in such a manner as to destroy and reduce its value and utility materially and permanently.

(3.) The tenants did not dispute the case of the landlord that there is stipulation in the rent deed that the tenants shall not cause alterations to the building. They contended that the landlord was not conducting periodical maintenance and repairs to the building. The verandah of the shop rooms was in a dilapidated condition. Tenants demanded the landlord to carry out maintenance of the roof of the verandah. The landlord allowed the tenants to effect alterations to the verandah including replacing of the tiles with asbestos sheets. The alterations were effected as agreed to by the landlord. By such alterations, the utility or value of the building is not affected and in fact, it is enhanced. No damage is caused to the building as a result of the alterations. The front elevation of the building has become more attractive and the utility of the building has been enhanced considerably.