G.REGHUNATHAN versus K.V. VARGHESE

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 23-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
G.REGHUNATHAN 
v. 
K.V. VARGHESE 
AUGUST 23, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.] 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections 11 
(2) & 11 (4) (ii)-Premises let out for setting up a shop for carrying on 
gold and silver jewellery business-Tenant defaulting in payment of rent 
C and making major alterations to the premises without the consent of 
landlord-Landlord filing eviction petition be/ere Rent Controller for wilful 
default of payment of rent and for destroying/reducing the value and utility 
of the premises materially and permanently-Rent Controller, Appellate 
Authority and High Court holding in favour of landlord-Correctness of-
D Held, tenant is liable to be evicted only if the landlord proved that the 
value or utility of the premises is materially and permanently affected by 
the act of the tenant-On facts, landlord has failed to prove it-Hence, 
eviction order is set aside gra1zting the tenant two months time for payment 
of arrears of rent to the landlord . 
E 
Appellant-tenant took on rent a room in the building belonging to 
respondent-landlord for setting up a shop for carrying on gold and 
silver jewellery business. As per the agreement, a sum of Rs.85,000 was 
given to the landlord as security by the tenant. The tenant was allowed 
to install electrical fittings and all necessary instruments or equipments 
F 
in the room for the purpose of his business. The tenant removed a door 
and three windows from the walls of the room and closed up the open-
ings, cut off the rafters in the front to a length of two-feet and lowered 
the level of the floor by one foot. He also erected two pillars touching 
the walls and fixed a rolling shutter in front of the shop. These were done 
without the written permission of the landlord. The tenant failed to pay 
G the rent to the landlord from the very next month of the agreement 
itself. 
The landlord issued a notice under section 11(2) of the Kerala 
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 calling upon the tenant 
H to pay the rent in arrears. On the failure by the tenant to tender the 
848 
G. REGHUNATHANv. K.V. VARGHESE 
849 
rent, the landlord filed an eviction petition before Rent Controller A 
against the tenant for wilful default of payment of rent and for destroy-
ing or reducing the value and utility of the premises materially and 
permanently. under section 11(2) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act respectively. 
The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition of the landlord on 
both the grounds. The appeal filed by the tenant before the Appellate B 
Authority challenging the Rent Controller's order was also dismissed. 
The tenant filed a revision petition before High Court under the Act. 
The High Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence the appeal by the 
tenant before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. For seeking eviction under section l 1(4)(ii) of the 
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the user should 
destroy or reduce the value or utility of the building materially and 
permanently. Even if the user leads to some reduction in the value or 
utility of the building, eviction cannot be ordered. But, if the value or 
utility is materially and permanently affected, an order for eviction 
could be passed. The destruction or damage has to be adjudged from 
the stand point of the landlord. The respondent landlord has not pleaded 
c 
D 
that the alterations made by the appellant tenant have destroyed or 
reduced the value or utility of the building materially and permanently. E 
The words "material and permanent" are . ..not disjunctive like in some 
other Acts. The landlord had not proved the material and permanent 
impairment in value or utility. The landlord admits that he will get a 
higher rent ifthe room is again let out. The landlord has failed to prove 
that the acts of the tenant constitute the user of the building in such a 
manner as to destroy or reduce the value or utility of the building 
materially and permanently. Hence the order for eviction under section 
11(4)(ii) of the Act is set aside. [857-A-E] 
F 
Manmohan Das v. Bishun Das, [1967] 1 SCR 836; Om Prakash v. 
Amar Singh, AIR (1987) SC 617; Brijendra Nath v. Harsh Wardhan, [1988] 
2 SCR 124; Arunachalam {died) through LRs & Anr. v. Thondarperienambi 
& Anr., AIR (1992) SC 977; Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, [1993] 
2 SCC 614 and Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh, [2003] l SCC 59, referred 
to. 
G 
Ahammad Ka

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.