IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 67 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.8/2003 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KASARAGOD RCP.28/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- GANAPATHI BHAT, S/O. VENKATRAMANA BHAT, PROPRIETOR, KALANDOOR PRESS, BOMBAY BAZAR, MULINJA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, P.O.UPPALA-671 322. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ YOUSUF ABU, S/O. ABU, LAND HOLDER, RESIDING AT MANNANGUZHI IN KODIBAIL VILLAGE OF KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, P.O.UPPALA-671 321. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.67 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and he challenges in this revision an order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the statutory authorities on the ground under clause (ii) of sub section (4) of Section 11 i.e. user of the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility materially and permanently. 2. The allegation of the landlord is that without authorisation from him, the tenant has demolished a valve and has constructed latrine. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of the commissioner's report, came to the conclusion that the acts of the tenant amounted to user of the building in a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently from the landlord's point of view. 3. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and RCR.No.67/2011 2 concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Having gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we notice that the findings entered therein regarding the existence of ground under Section 11(4)(ii) are actually entered on the basis of the evidence which is available in the case. Under the above circumstances, we do not find way to upset those findings within the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature. The revision necessarily will have to fail and we dismiss the same in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk