SASIDHARAN Vs. EDAPPAYIL PREMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant against whom order of eviction is passed concurrently by the rent control court and the appellate authority on the ground under Sections 11(2)(b) (arrears of rent) and 11(4)(ii) (user of building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently) is the revision petitioner. It was submitted at the Bar that since the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is virtually a provisional one which is liable to be vacated by making deposit under Section 11(2)(c), it is not necessary that the above order is interfered with and it will suffice if time is granted for making the requisite deposit for filing application under Section 11(2)(c). Therefore we in this revision petition are concerned with the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(ii) only.

(2.) THE case of the landlord under Section 11(4)(ii) was that the tenant is running a wood industry in the building and that he is using machinery in a careless manner. It was alleged that operation of electric motors fitted in the building cause constant vibration. It was further alleged that respondent uses timber logs inside the building without caring for the safety of the building and that because of such misuse, the building has suffered permanent and material damage resulting in loss of utility and value of the building. It is also alleged that the user of the building is in such a manner as to destroy the building. The tenant in his objections denied the allegation that value and utility of the building has been lost due to the conduct of the tenant. It was contended that the building got damaged only due to lack of timely repairs and maintenance by the petitioner. It was also contended that the tenant started running the industry in 1987 and that the landlady and her men trespassed into the building and demolished the northern wall and shifted its position. There was a police case and the landlady had assured to carry out the repair works. The allegation that the machinery and motors used by the respondents do cause extensive vibration as to affect the strength of the building was denied. It was alleged that the landlady is running a flour mill in the adjacent portion of the building and that she is using a 15 HP motor in that flour mill. That 15 HP motor is causing more vibrations affecting the entire building, it was alleged.

(3.) WE have heard the submissions of Sri.M.P.M.Aslam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalm, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady. After hearing both sides for some time, we suggested to the learned counsel to explore the possibility of settlement of the issue between their parties. Though it was so explored, it was reported that an out of court settlement is not possible. As directed by us, both sides have placed before us recently taken photographs of the entire building consisting of the petition schedule building and the adjacent building wherein the landlady is conducting flour mill.