ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting. When the matter was taken up by the tenants in appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Thereafter the tenants filed a revision before the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, which has been allowed by the f impugned order and judgments rendered by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have been set aside and claim for eviction dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. From a bare perusal of the order of the High Court, it would appear that it has reappreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion different from the trial court as well as the appellate court and held that the plaintiff failed to prove the ground of sub-letting. The High Court has nowhere stated that the finding of fact recorded by the original authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority were perverse in any manner. It has not been even stated that the material evidence has not been considered by the two courts of fact or the evidence adduced by the parties have been misread in any manner. This b