Judgment :- 1. A landlord, in his eagerness to get an order of eviction, spread the net so wide as to have a catch atleast on one of the many grounds set up. Though he failed in the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority he succeeded in revision before the District Court where the ground urged by him under S.11(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the Act') was upheld. The aggrieved tenant has filed this Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. Original 2. The building involved herein is a shop room which the tenant took on rent in 1938 from its previous owner (one Sri. S.M. Ismail Saheb). The present landlord purchased the ownership of this building in 1964. The tenant has another room in his possession which is situated adjacent to the tenanted premises. The next room on the eastern side is in the possession of the land lord himself. There were earlier litigations between the landlord and the tenant. The present litigation started in 1978. Among the several grounds which the landlord took up in the petition filed before the Rent Control Court, the one that survives for consideration is that the tenant used the building in such a way as to cause its value and utility reduced materially and permanently. 3.The facts in support of the said ground, alleged by the landlord, are these: The tenant provided a door on the eastern wall of the tenanted room so that a passage was created from the said room to the eastern room (which belongs to the wife of the tenant) which is in the occupation of the tenant. Further, he put up a common veranda on the western side of both the said rooms and painted the veranda in one colour so that both rooms now appear to be belonging to the same person. The tenant admitted the existence of the door and the veranda, but contended that they were in existence even when he took the room on rent from the previous owner Sri. S. M. Ismail Saheb. The Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority found that those constructions were in existence atleast before the present landlord purchased the ownership of the tenanted room. The two fact finding courts held that construction of those two items did not amount to impairment of value or utility of the building. S. M. Ismail Saheb. The Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority found that those constructions were in existence atleast before the present landlord purchased the ownership of the tenanted room. The two fact finding courts held that construction of those two items did not amount to impairment of value or utility of the building. The aforesaid conclusion was based on the principle laid down in Ahammad Kanna v. Muhammed Haneef (1966 K.L.J. 941:1967 K.L.T. 841). On facts the said two courts did not follow the ratio in Ayissabeevi v. Aboobaker (1971 KLT. 273). But the District Court took the view that the first two courts had not correctly understood its reasoning in Ayissabeevi's case. Hence the District Judge found that the conclusion reached by the two courts below was "incorrect, unjust and contrary to the position of law enunciated by our High Court in the ruling referred above". Referring to the observation of the Appellate Authority that the passage on the eastern wall of the room could be closed at any time and building could easily be restored to its original condition, learned District Judge remarked that the matter should have been looked at differently since the question to be considered is "whether any alteration has been made to the building so as to obliterate the boundaries and thereby affecting the identity of the property." After considering the above question, learned District Judge set aside the concurrent finding and passed the order of eviction on the ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant contended that the District Judge over-reached his jurisdictional limitations and that the order for eviction was passed without even adverting to the main limbs of the ground envisaged in S.11 (4)(ii) of the Act and also without considering the further question of bona fides of the landlord in taking up the ground since he purchased the property with the full knowledge that those constructions were in existence even then. His contention, in other words, is that no court, much less the revisional authority, has jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction on the ground under S.11 (4) (ii) of the Act without finding that the manner of use has resulted in reduction or destruction of value or utility materially and permanently. His contention, in other words, is that no court, much less the revisional authority, has jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction on the ground under S.11 (4) (ii) of the Act without finding that the manner of use has resulted in reduction or destruction of value or utility materially and permanently. In understanding the correctness of the said contention, the relevant provision is extracted below: "S. 11 (4): A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building (ii) if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently." 5. The two items of alterations made by the tenant, even if the allegation is true, are: (1) Removal of portion of the boundary wall and putting up a door in that place; (2) Construction of a common varenda for the tenanted premises as well as the other room in his possession. Removal of a wall separating two rooms may or may not result in impairment of utility or value, depending on the facts of each case. In Ahammad Kanna's case (1967 K.L.T. 841) Mathew, J. held on facts of that case that removal of wall separating two rooms for the convenience of trade cannot be said to be an act of waste. Sadasivan, J. in Ayissabeevi's case (1971 K. L.T. 273) distinguished Ahammad Kanna's case on facts, and held that in a case where the act of the tenant obliterated the boundary line and tagged on the property with the adjoining property amounted to waste. The undisputed facts in that case, as pointed by the learned judge, were "that the western boundary of the schedule property has completely been obliterated and confuted by the putting up of the corridor the confusion created by the erection of the corridor is bound to further complications in future and create difficulties for the reversioner or remainder man in redeeming the property." It was in the light of the aforesaid facts that the learned single judge concurred with the finding that that waste was committed. There can be no hard and fast rule that removal of a wall or construction of a door or providing a common veranda would necessarily lead to an inference that there was either destruction or reduction of value or utility. There can be no hard and fast rule that removal of a wall or construction of a door or providing a common veranda would necessarily lead to an inference that there was either destruction or reduction of value or utility. Such acts of the tenant have to be judged on the facts of each case. 6. To attract Clause(ii) of sub-s. (4) of S.11 the Act proof of mere reduction or even destruction of utility or value would not be sufficient. The words "materially and permanently" have much importance in the context because the legislature was not inclined to allow a tenant to be dislodged from the building en proof of even destruction of utility or value of the building. Almost a similar expression is used in S.108 Clause (e) of the Transfer of Property Act that when the property leased is destroyed or "substantially and permanently" rendered unfit, due to the wrongful act of the tenant, the lease becomes void. Courts have held that the damage caused must be so great as to involve reasonably sizable expense to rectify the damage. While dealing with the expression "materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value" in S.3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 the Supreme Court observed in Man Mohan Das v. Bishun Das (AIR 1967 S. C 643) that it would depend upon facts and circumstances in each case. The expression "materially and permanently" in Clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) of the Act would certainly indicate that a landlord cannot get an order of eviction on that ground by mere proof of minor destruction, or alteration, even if it results in marginal reduction of value or utility. As the expression was used conjunctively the legislature has indicated that even material alterations of a temporary nature would not help the landlord in getting an order of eviction. The destruction or reduction of utility or value of the building must be of a reasonably substantial magnitude. 7. The District Judge has not even considered whether the alleged alterations did result in destruction of utility or reduction in value of the building. Even if the court finds that the alterations amounted to impairment of utility or value materially and permanently, the further point which the court should have considered was whether there is bona tides in the landlord's claim. Even if the court finds that the alterations amounted to impairment of utility or value materially and permanently, the further point which the court should have considered was whether there is bona tides in the landlord's claim. S.11(10) of the Act enjoins on an authority under the Act to reject the application it he is not satisfied of the bona fides of his claim. In this case it is particularly important in view of the tenant's contention that the landlord knew about the present condition of the building including the alterations made by the tenant even at the time of purchase of the building. In the aforesaid circumstances, I have to quash the order of the District Judge (Ext. P3) as the learned District Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act. I do so, and remit the case to the District Court for fresh disposal of the revision according to law. Issue carbon copies of this judgment to the counsel on both sides on usual terms.