{"id":41406,"date":"2010-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-27T14:31:08","modified_gmt":"2014-06-27T09:01:08","slug":"k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 934 of 2003(F)\n\n\n1. K.S.ACHAN KUNHU, S\/O. SAMUVAL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MARY VARGHESE, D\/O. GEORGE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :15\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n            ------------------------------------------\n                CRP. Nos. 934 & 979 of 2003\n           -------------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant against whom order of eviction is passed on<\/p>\n
the ground under clause 2 of sub section 4 of section 11 and<\/p>\n
clause (b) of sub section 2 of section 11 i.e. the ground of<\/p>\n
user of the building in such a manner as to reduce the value<\/p>\n
and utility of the building materially and permanently and<\/p>\n
the ground of arrears of rent concurrently by the        Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the Appellate Authority in respect of two<\/p>\n
adjacent rooms belonging to two different landladies who<\/p>\n
are direct sisters, is the petitioner in these revisions under<\/p>\n
section 20. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as the<\/p>\n
tenant and the landladies. The landladies sought to evict the<\/p>\n
tenant on the grounds under section 11(3) bona fide need<\/p>\n
for own occupation and section 11(4)(iii) the ground that<\/p>\n
the tenant is in possession of other buildings reasonably<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nsufficient for his requirements also. The ground of bona fide<\/p>\n
need for own occupation was given up by the landladies<\/p>\n
even before the trial was conducted by the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court and the ground under section 11(4)(iii) was<\/p>\n
disallowed by the Rent Control Court and that decision has<\/p>\n
attained finality.\n<\/p>\n
     2. As for the ground of arrears of rent, there is some<\/p>\n
controversy at the Bar as to whether subsequently, the<\/p>\n
arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority to be due as alleged by the landladies<\/p>\n
has been completely discharged by the tenant. Since it is<\/p>\n
conceded that the order of eviction is yet to be formally got<\/p>\n
vacated under section 11(2)(c), we do not propose to deal<\/p>\n
with that ground except to say that the tenant will have two<\/p>\n
months from today to file a formal application under section<\/p>\n
11(2)(c) for getting the order of eviction passed under<\/p>\n
section 11(2)(b) vacated. It is needless to say that while<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\nconsidering that application under section 11(2)(c), the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court will examine whether entire arrears of rent as<\/p>\n
found by the Rent Control Court has been discharged. It was<\/p>\n
conceded that we in these revision petitions need be<\/p>\n
concerned seriously only with the legality, regularity and<\/p>\n
propriety of the order of eviction passed by the authorities<\/p>\n
below on the ground under section 11(4)(ii).<\/p>\n
     3. The case of the landladies as pleaded in the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Petitions was that the building in RCP No.9\/94<\/p>\n
corresponding to CRP No.934\/03 and the building in<\/p>\n
RCP.10\/94 corresponding to CRP No.979\/03 were let out by<\/p>\n
the   landladies       who are    sisters to  the    revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/tenant on 07\/08\/96 on the basis of rent chits on a<\/p>\n
monthly rent of Rs.400\/-. The rooms were adjacent rooms.<\/p>\n
While being in possession of these rooms, the tenant<\/p>\n
without the consent and knowledge of the landladies<\/p>\n
demolished the partition wall in between the rooms and<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthereby causing substantial and permanent damages to the<\/p>\n
rooms. The strength of the building was reduced due to the<\/p>\n
demolition of partition wall. The identity and security of the<\/p>\n
rooms was lost due to the Act of the tenant. The tenant<\/p>\n
without the knowledge and consent of the landladies<\/p>\n
lowered the front portion of the rooms to a depth of 1.5 feet<\/p>\n
and the back portion of the rooms to a depth of three feet.<\/p>\n
As a result of this act also the strength of the rooms was<\/p>\n
affected. These alterations have reduced the value and<\/p>\n
utility of the building. Through the statement of objections<\/p>\n
filed by the revision petitioners, it was contended that the<\/p>\n
possession of the rooms was given on a monthly rent of<\/p>\n
Rs.350\/- as per a kachit dt.11\/07\/86 for a period of eleven<\/p>\n
months for conduct of HMT watches show room. On the<\/p>\n
terms of the lease deed, the tenant was permitted to<\/p>\n
demolish the partition walls up to a hight of 50 cms and to a<\/p>\n
length of 2.5 metres for the purpose of conduct of the show<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                            – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\nrooms. Accordingly, the tenant removed the partition wall to<\/p>\n
that extent. While so, the tenant requested the landladies<\/p>\n
for the permission of removal of the partition wall in<\/p>\n
entirety. They stated that if the rent is enhanced to<\/p>\n
Rs.400\/-, such permission will be granted and on that basis<\/p>\n
and with the permission of the landladies, the tenant<\/p>\n
removed the partition walls and executed a kachit<\/p>\n
dt.07\/08\/86 increasing the rent to Rs.400\/-. The allegation<\/p>\n
that the partition walls was removed without the consent<\/p>\n
and permission of the landladies is wrong. The tenants<\/p>\n
agreed to enhance the rent to Rs.400\/- on condition that<\/p>\n
permission be granted for removal of the partition wall and<\/p>\n
the partition wall was removed after executing kachit dated<\/p>\n
7-6-1986 enhancing the rent to Rs.400\/-. It is then<\/p>\n
contended that for separating the two rooms which were<\/p>\n
subject matter of the two RCPs there was a partition wall<\/p>\n
which was made of bricks and three concrete pillers. The<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\ntenant had only removed the brick wall.     By doing so, the<\/p>\n
value and utility of the building as well as strength of the<\/p>\n
building is not affected at all. On the other hand the<\/p>\n
convenience of the room has increased. The partition wall<\/p>\n
as it originally existed can be reconstructed at any time<\/p>\n
without difficulty. The show room was constructed by the<\/p>\n
tenant by joining the two rooms after spending huge<\/p>\n
amounts.      The earlier rent control petition filed by the<\/p>\n
landladies for the selfsame relief was dismissed by the High<\/p>\n
Court.    Hence the present rent control petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     4. At trial by the Rent Control Court, the evidence in<\/p>\n
the two cases which were tried jointly by that court<\/p>\n
consisted of Exts.A1 to A13, oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2<\/p>\n
on the side of the landladies. On the side of the tenants,<\/p>\n
the same consisted of Exts.B1 to B4 and the testimonies of<\/p>\n
RW1 and RW2. The report and sketch submitted by the<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                                – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\nCommissioner who conducted inspection were marked as<\/p>\n
Exts.C1 and C2.         On evaluating the evidence, the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court came to the conclusion that the tenant has<\/p>\n
used the building in such a manner as to reduce the value<\/p>\n
and utility of the buildings materially and permanently and<\/p>\n
accordingly passed an order of eviction on the ground under<\/p>\n
Section 11(4)(iv). Separate appeals were preferred to the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority by the tenants as RCA.<\/p>\n
Nos. 2 & 3 of 1997. The Rent Control Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
considered the appeals together, reappraised the evidence<\/p>\n
and concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court.    Accordingly the order of eviction passed under<\/p>\n
Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(4)(ii) were confirmed and<\/p>\n
the appeals were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     5. In these revisions under Section 20 the judgment of<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Appellate Authority is impugned on various<\/p>\n
grounds and Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
\nfor the revision petitioner addressed us strenuously on the<\/p>\n
basis of all those grounds.          All the submissions of<\/p>\n
Mr.Balakrishna Iyer were effectively resisted by Sri.P.C.<\/p>\n
Chacko, learned counsel for the respondent landladies.<\/p>\n
Sri.Balakrishna Iyer argued that the order of the       Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority is the result of misreading of evidence<\/p>\n
by those two fact finding authorities. According to him, the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority erred in thinking that what is pleaded in<\/p>\n
the counter statement by the tenants is that the partition<\/p>\n
wall was removed after A1 and A2 rent bonds. No such<\/p>\n
admission has been made the tenant through his pleadings.<\/p>\n
According to Mr.Balakrishna Iyer, the pleadings as well as<\/p>\n
the evidence on the side of the tenants regarding the time<\/p>\n
of removal of the partition wall is consistent and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority has gone wrong in thinking that there is<\/p>\n
inconsistency      between the     pleadings and   evidence.<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                               – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
\nAccording to the learned senior counsel, the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority    has      misread and    misunderstood  Ext.A13<\/p>\n
deposition as well as the testimony of RW2.    The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority should have enquired into the circumstances<\/p>\n
which    necessitated     execution  of  fresh  rent  bonds<\/p>\n
immediately after Exts.B3 and B1 koolichits were executed.<\/p>\n
The Appellate Authority should have found           that as<\/p>\n
consideration for the consent given by the landladies for<\/p>\n
removal of the wall and lowering of the floor only the<\/p>\n
tenants agreed to pay Rs.50\/- more and to execute fresh<\/p>\n
rent bonds.      According to the learned senior counsel the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority should have held that in the light of<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 and B3 the landladies cannot say that they had<\/p>\n
never agreed to the removal of any portion of the partition<\/p>\n
wall as they have pleaded in the petitions for eviction.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, it is in evidence that the<\/p>\n
landladies approached the court with a false case. According<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                                  – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
\nto Mr. Balakrishna Iyer, if nothing further than the alteration<\/p>\n
agreed to in B3 and B1 were required, then there was no<\/p>\n
necessity to execute fresh rent bonds.        In the rent bonds<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 and A2,          there is no mention   at all about any<\/p>\n
alteration and they proceed as if           the two rooms are<\/p>\n
independent units . This circumstance will also probabilise<\/p>\n
that     by the time Exts.A1 and A2 were executed, further<\/p>\n
alterations were already         carried out.  According to Mr.<\/p>\n
Balakrishna Iyer if the further alterations are proved to be<\/p>\n
with the consent of the landladies, then there is no question<\/p>\n
of considering whether these alterations have affected the<\/p>\n
value and utility of the building.         Mr. Balakrishna Iyer<\/p>\n
argued that the landladies have no case that the lowering of<\/p>\n
the floor at two places was done at a different point of time.<\/p>\n
If that be so, the said act was also done when the further<\/p>\n
removal of the wall was carried out and the lowering of the<\/p>\n
floor was also with the consent of the landladies. According<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                               – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
\nto Mr. Balakrishna Iyer, the Appellate Authority has erred in<\/p>\n
thinking that the shop floor level is below the road level and<\/p>\n
therefore there is chance of water seeping in and the same<\/p>\n
affects the stability of the building. Counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
the alterations effected by the tenants actually enhances the<\/p>\n
value and utility of the building. Counsel would assail the<\/p>\n
finding of the Appellate Authority regarding arrears of rent<\/p>\n
and also submitted that at any rate, the entire arrears of<\/p>\n
rent as found by the authorities have been paid off. Due to<\/p>\n
such payment the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b)<\/p>\n
stands automatically vacated.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
would remind us of the contours of the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
revisional court under Section 20. He would support the<\/p>\n
judgment of the          Rent Control Appellate Authority and<\/p>\n
submit that all the findings entered by the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority are founded on evidence. According to<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
\nhim, there is no warrant for interference with those findings.<\/p>\n
     7. We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the Bar. Even though this Court<\/p>\n
in revision under section 20 is not normally expected to<\/p>\n
make a reappraisal of the evidence, considering the<\/p>\n
strenuous     submissions  addressed    before   us   by   Mr.<\/p>\n
Balakrishna Iyer, we have made a quick survey of the<\/p>\n
evidence as well as the pleadings. Having regard to the well<\/p>\n
delineated contours of the revisional jurisdiction of this<\/p>\n
Court under Section 20, we are of the view that there is no<\/p>\n
warrant for interference with the findings of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority. According to the landladies, the tenant removed<\/p>\n
the partition wall in between the two rooms which are<\/p>\n
adjacent, thereby destroying the identity of the rooms and<\/p>\n
causing substantial damages to the same resulting in<\/p>\n
reduction of the value and utility of the rooms materially<\/p>\n
and permanently. The specific allegations of the landladies<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                                – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
\nis that the tenant without their consent and knowledge<\/p>\n
lowered the front floor to a depth of 1 = feet and the back<\/p>\n
floor to a depth of 3 feet.           The tenant’s contention<\/p>\n
essentially       is that he effected the alterations with the<\/p>\n
consent and knowledge of the landladies and that on<\/p>\n
account of the alterations done by him the value and utility<\/p>\n
of the buildings has become enhanced. The tenant testified<\/p>\n
as RW1 that         as per B1 and B3 he is entitled to make<\/p>\n
alterations to the two rooms.         On the mediation of one<\/p>\n
C.P.Varghese and Sri.M.Jacob he was permitted to remove<\/p>\n
the partition wall and make other alterations.         It was<\/p>\n
accordingly that the rent was enhanced by Rs.50\/- for each<\/p>\n
room. Thereafter A1 and A2 were executed. The alterations<\/p>\n
were effected after the execution of A1 and A2,. The rear<\/p>\n
portion of the rooms were lowered by 1 =             feet, the<\/p>\n
partition wall was removed, denolium was fixed on the floor<\/p>\n
and glass was fitted behind the shutter. The tenant also<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                                – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
\nconstructed a berth with plants. Due to these no damage<\/p>\n
has been caused to the building. By the alterations, the<\/p>\n
water from outside will not enter the rooms. In cross<\/p>\n
examination the tenant stated that it was after the<\/p>\n
alterations that he filed necessary applications before the<\/p>\n
Bathery Panchayat. He holds the rooms under A1 and A2.<\/p>\n
He signed A1 and A2 after reading through its contents. It<\/p>\n
is incorrect to say that on 11-7-1986 the first modification<\/p>\n
was effected as per the agreement and the wall was<\/p>\n
removed for 2 = metres in length and 50 cms. in height.<\/p>\n
He would state that such statement is not correct. What he<\/p>\n
stated is that         the modifications were effected before<\/p>\n
receiving Ext. B2.       Before Ext.B2, the partition wall was<\/p>\n
retained to a height of 50 cms. and 2 = feet was left on<\/p>\n
the rear side. He conceded that as per Ext. A2 the wall is<\/p>\n
to be retained to a length of 7 = feet. He also conceded<\/p>\n
that as per Exts. B1 to B3, no permission was granted to<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
\nhim to dig the floor. He further conceded that as per B2 he<\/p>\n
cannot remove the wall for a length of 7 = ft. He admitted<\/p>\n
that the provision to retain the wall for a height of 80 cms.<\/p>\n
was for retaining the identity of the rooms. He conceded<\/p>\n
that no permission was granted to him to remove the entire<\/p>\n
wall and that presently there is only one door on the two<\/p>\n
rooms and that the same was on the western side.<\/p>\n
     8.     The learned District Judge who is the final fact<\/p>\n
finding authority under the scheme of the Rent Control Act<\/p>\n
found on appreciating the evidence of the tenant that he is<\/p>\n
highly artificial       laboured and strained. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority noticed that admittedly the tenant is in possession<\/p>\n
of the rooms as per Exts.A1 and A2. Going by A1 and A2<\/p>\n
the two rooms have got separate identities of their own. A1<\/p>\n
and A2 contains an express undertaking by the tenant not to<\/p>\n
make any alterations to the rooms. Exts.B1 and B3 dated<\/p>\n
11-7-1986 are the earlier rent chits with respect to the two<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
\nrooms.     These documents will show that the tenant was<\/p>\n
allowed to remove a portion of the partition wall in between<\/p>\n
the two rooms. But it is specifically provided therein that<\/p>\n
the partition wall has to be retained for a length of 2 =<\/p>\n
metres from the rear side and also that for the remaining<\/p>\n
portion, the partition wall has to be retained to a height of<\/p>\n
50 cms. Ext. B2 letter given by the landlady will show that<\/p>\n
the retention of the wall to the extent mentioned in Exts. B1<\/p>\n
and B3 is reiterated therein.      The learned District Judge<\/p>\n
found that in the light of these documents that it was highly<\/p>\n
improbable that the landladies would have permitted the<\/p>\n
appellant to remove the entire wall and also to lower the<\/p>\n
level of the ground on the front and in the rear side as<\/p>\n
claimed by the tenant. On appreciating the evidence and<\/p>\n
the pleadings, the District Court found that the tenant does<\/p>\n
not have a consistent case regarding the time when the<\/p>\n
alterations are made. It was noticed that in the counter the<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                             – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
\ntenant claimed that he had removed the partition wall<\/p>\n
subsequent to the execution of A1 and A2. But during the<\/p>\n
cross examination what is stated was that a partition wall<\/p>\n
was removed prior to A1 and A2. Ext.A13 which is copy of<\/p>\n
the tenant’s deposition in the earlier proceedings will show<\/p>\n
that the tenant’s version at that time was that he removed<\/p>\n
the partition wall subsequent to A1 and A2. On the basis of<\/p>\n
the evidence including commissioner’s report the District<\/p>\n
Court found agreeing with the Rent Control Court that the<\/p>\n
alterations effected are material and substantial in nature.<\/p>\n
Hence on a preponderance of probability the District Judge<\/p>\n
found that it is highly improbable that the landladies would<\/p>\n
have given permission to make such material alterations as<\/p>\n
the tenant claims. RW2 is a member of KPCC. He stated in<\/p>\n
chief examination that on his mediation permission was<\/p>\n
granted to the tenant to remove the partition wall and to<\/p>\n
construct a berth. But in cross examination he stated that<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe wall was removed after the execution of the rent bond.<\/p>\n
But this version is controverted by the evidence of RW1 as<\/p>\n
noticed by the Appellate Authority. The finding of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority which is final fact finding court<\/p>\n
under the statutory scheme on appreciating the evidence is<\/p>\n
that he is a casual witness highly interested in the tenant.<\/p>\n
The evidence adduced by PWs 1 and 2, the two landladies<\/p>\n
inspired confidence in the mind of the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
which had the advantage of recording their testimonies as<\/p>\n
well as the Appellate Authority, the final court on facts. On<\/p>\n
the basis of the evidence only it was found that the removal<\/p>\n
of the partition wall and the alterations highlighted   in the<\/p>\n
RCP were effected without the consent of the landladies.<\/p>\n
     9. The next question whether by virtue of the<\/p>\n
alterations, the value and utility of the building has been<\/p>\n
materially and permanently reduced was also seriously<\/p>\n
considered by both the authorities. Ext.A6 commission<\/p>\n
   CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
\nreport will show that presently there is just one shop room<\/p>\n
with a single frontage and a single name Board covering the<\/p>\n
entire width of the shop room and that the sale entrance is<\/p>\n
through the western portion. The report will further show<\/p>\n
that the flooring of the front side portion is on level with the<\/p>\n
main road and the front side of the shop room is completely<\/p>\n
closed with glass.       It is also reported that the front portion<\/p>\n
is 1 = ft. lower than the boundaries basement of the pillars<\/p>\n
and that the back portion about 4 ft. lower than the front<\/p>\n
side portion. It was reported that the entrance to the pit<\/p>\n
portion is through two steps constructed in the middle and<\/p>\n
that the back side portion is divided into two. It was also<\/p>\n
reported by C-1 that the northern portion of the room was<\/p>\n
dug to the extent of 33 = inches and on the southern side<\/p>\n
by 18 inches.        There are two steps in the centre of the<\/p>\n
room. It is further reported in C1, that the dug portion is<\/p>\n
divided into two and there is no wall to divide or separate<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                             – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe rooms. C2 is the sketch in respect of C1 report. On the<\/p>\n
basis of Ext.C1 and C2 it was found that the tenant had<\/p>\n
removed the partition wall between the two rooms, that the<\/p>\n
tenant had dug the floor of the rooms and lowered its level<\/p>\n
by 1 = feet and 3 ft. respectively. The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
found that these are substantial alterations of a permanent<\/p>\n
nature. It was found that the identity of the two rooms<\/p>\n
have been completely lost and the room has become one<\/p>\n
single room. The Appellate Authority rightly found that the<\/p>\n
question whether the value and utility of the building has<\/p>\n
been reduced materially and permanently has to be viewed<\/p>\n
from the point of view of the landlady and not that of the<\/p>\n
tenant. The judgment of the Supreme Court in (1993) 2<\/p>\n
SCC 614 was relied on by the learned District Judge in this<\/p>\n
context. The learned District Judge also relied on the<\/p>\n
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in ILR 2002 (3)<\/p>\n
Kerala 574.\n<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                               – 21 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     10. Having scanned the judgment of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority we do not find any illegality, irregularity<\/p>\n
or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965.<\/p>\n
The conclusions concurrently arrived by the authorities<\/p>\n
below are quite reasonable and there is no warrant for<\/p>\n
interference having regard to the contours of the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
under Section 20 which is revisional.\n<\/p>\n
     11. The result is that both the revision petitions fail.<\/p>\n
However, considering the last plea of Sri. S.V.Balakrishna<\/p>\n
Iyer for grant of time, the execution court is directed to<\/p>\n
defer delivery till      30-9-2010 subject to the following<\/p>\n
conditions.\n<\/p>\n
     The revision petitioner files an undertaking before the<\/p>\n
execution court or the Rent Control Court as the case may<\/p>\n
be, within two weeks of the court reopening after<\/p>\n
midsummer holidays to the effect that he will surrender<\/p>\n
possession of the petition schedule premises peacefully on<\/p>\n
  CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                              – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
\nor before 30-9-2010. It will also be undertaken through the<\/p>\n
affidavit that arrears of rent if any, will be discharged and<\/p>\n
that occupational charges at the current rent rate will also<\/p>\n
be paid as and when the same falls due without fail.<\/p>\n
                          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                          C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
\nksv\/-\n<\/p>\n
CRP. 934 & 979 of 2003\n<\/p>\n
                          – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
                             PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
\n                             C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                         CRP. No. 934 & 979 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                O R D E R<\/p>\n
                            15th January, 2010<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 934 of 2003(F) 1. K.S.ACHAN KUNHU, S\/O. SAMUVAL, … Petitioner Vs 1. MARY VARGHESE, D\/O. GEORGE, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-27T09:01:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-27T09:01:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3674,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\",\"name\":\"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-27T09:01:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-27T09:01:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-27T09:01:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010"},"wordCount":3674,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010","name":"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-27T09:01:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-achan-kunhu-vs-mary-varghese-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.S.Achan Kunhu vs Mary Varghese on 15 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}