PONNAMPARAMBATH ANAND KUMAR Vs. CHEMMALAPPURATH DEVADASAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rent Control Revision is filed by the landlord. The rent control petition was filed urging grounds under Section 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). After trial, the Rent Control Court allowed eviction accepting ground under section 11(4)(ii) and rejected grounds under Section 11(4)(iii) and 11(8). RCA Nos. 14/2006 and 16/2006 were filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode by the tenant and the landlord respectively. By the common order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, RCA 14/06 was allowed and RCA 16/06 filed by the landlord was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, the landlord has filed this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner landlord and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent tenant and have considered the submissions made.

(3.) As we have already stated, the grounds urged in the rent control petition are under Section 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iii) and 11(8). Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act provides that if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently, that is a ground for the landlord to seek eviction. In so far as this case is concerned, Ext.B6 shows that room No. 2240 is situated to the south of room No. 2241, which is now in the occupation of the landlord. To the north western corner of the northern wall of room No. 2241 is a fire hearth used by the tenant. The case of the landlord was that on account of the constant use of fire hearth, cracks have developed in the northern wall of room No. 2241. It is on that basis, the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) was urged by the landlord.