SASIDHARAN Vs. EDAPPAYIL PREMLATHA

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.) At trial before the rent control court, the evidence on the side of the landlady consisted of Exts. A-1to A-3 and the oral testimony of P.W.1, the husband of the landlady. On the side of the tenant, the same consisted of Exts. B-1 to B-7 and his own oral testimony as R.W. 1. Apart from that there were Commissioner's report- Ext. C-1 and Ext. C-2 and plan-Ext. C-3. Therent control court on an evaluation of the evidence would find that the allegation of the landlady that the use of machines run by the motor in the tenant's work area has caused damage to the building cannot be correct. It was also found that the landlady's allegation that the walls of the building was damaged by hitting with big timber logs can only be treated as a weird allegation. It was found by the court that the building has become completely dilapidated. But according to the court, the same is due to want of routine repairs and maintenance as alleged by the tenant. The rent control court noticed that Ext. A-1 lease deed stipulates that the tenant can conduct repairs with the consent of the landlord. The tenant did not have a case that he had ventured to do any timely repairs and maintenance as envisaged in Ext. A-1. The tenant admitted that at the time when the building was let out to him, the condition of the building was good and sound. Therefore it could be found that the tenant had not cared to provide or ask for any timely repair and maintenance to the building. Ext. B-7 notice seeking for repairs was sent only after the institution of the rent control petition. The circumstances, according to that court will show that the tenant did not bother to effect timely repairs or maintenance to the building and the tenant is responsible for the present dilapidated condition of the building. On that reason, that court passed order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) against the tenant Therent control appellate authority also virtually concurred with the conclusions of therent control court giving slightly different reasons for confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(ii). That authority accordingly dismissed the rent control appeal.