IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 RCRev..No. 151 of 2003() ------------------------ RCA.7/1997 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.15/1995 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------- M.N.KRISHNA KURUP, S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MARARIKULAM MURI, MARARIKULAM NORTH VILLAGE, S.L.PURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. M.P.VINODKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARA KURUP, KIZHAKKUMOOPRILANCHERRY, MARARIKULAM SOUTH, KALAVOOR VILLGE, MILK DISTRIBUTORS, MARARIKULAM KALATHATTU JUNCTION, S.L.PURAM P.O. 2. M.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARA KURUP, KIZHAKKUMOOPRILANCHERRY, STATIONERY MERCHANT, MARARIKULAM KALATHATTU JUNCTION, S.L.PURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON 18.9.2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No.151 of 2003 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The landlord in a petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') is the petitioner herein. Eviction was sought under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Both the authorities below concurrently found that the ground under Section 11(2)(b) has been proved, but refused eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The ground raised under Section 11(4)(ii) is that the tenants have used the building in such a way as to reduce its value and utility. The tenanted premises consists of two rooms and a varam and the allegation is that they have caused destruction to the varam and also the steps leading to the premises. 4. The landlord, in his examination as P.W.1, had stated that the charthu (varam) is having a roof made of pleated coconut fronds. According to him, the tenants have deliberately destroyed the roof of RCR 151/2003 -2- the charthu and steps to the premises. He had effected maintenance to the said construction in the year 1990. P.W.2 is the Advocate Commissioner who filed Ext.A7 report. In fact, the Commissioner could not find anything on the part of the tenants which led to the destruction of the charthu. The Commissioner noted the decay to the roof portion of the charthu as due to natural causes and not because of any activity on the part of the tenants. Therefore, plainly no damage has been found by the Commissioner in the report. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have discussed in detail the said report and rendered findings against the landlord. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence available have not been appreciated correctly by the authorities below. It is pointed out that the charthu has suffered destruction and it can only be at the hands of the tenants. Damage has been caused to the steps also. Learned counsel for the tenants pointed out by referring to the oral evidence as well as to the report of the Commissioner that the said allegations have no merit. The destruction, if any, of the roof has been caused due to the natural causes and old age and not due to any action on the part of the tenants. 6. We find that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have no merit. It is clear from the report of the RCR 151/2003 -3- Commissioner that the charthu (shed) suffered damage due to lack of maintenance. Even going by the evidence of P.W.1, the last time he repaired the same is in the year 1990. The damage caused to the foot step was also attributed to the user of the same and not because of any activities on the part of the tenants. Therefore, the evidence is clinching on this aspect and it goes against the contentions raised by the landlord. 7. We find no reason to interfere with the reasoning adopted by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. It is purely in the realm of appreciation of the evidence and both the authorities have concurrently found, on a detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, that the case pleaded by the landlord is not correct. For the landlord to succeed, it should have been proved that the tenants are using the building in such a manner to destroy and reduce its value and utility materially and permanently and the evidence adduced in this case lacks credence on that aspect. There is no evidence to show that the tenants have damaged any part of the building or charthu or has caused any destruction to the roof of the charthu by any conscious action on their part. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the RCR 151/2003 -4- Appellate Authority. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ RCR 151/2003 -5- P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.151 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O R D E R September, 2008.