Judgment :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A petition was filed before the learned Munsif, Quilon, who was exercising powers of the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, by K. Parameswaran Pillai and B. Geethadevi for eviction of the two tenants and one sub-tenant from two shop rooms which were let out in the year 1967 on a monthly rental of Rs.250/-. In 1971, the tenants undeniably created a sub-tenancy in relation to one of the two rooms in favour of S. Abdul Jabbar. Later on, a partition was effected on 12th October, 1981, in which one of the two rooms in question was allotted in the share of Premachandran and the other in favour of his sister, B. Geethadevi, Plaintiff No.2. Premachandran transferred the room, allotted in his share, under a registered sale deed executed in favour of Plaintiff No.1, who is nobody else than his own brother. The present suit has been filed by the transferee from Premachandran, who acquired right, title and interest in one of the rooms, which was allotted in favour of Premachandran and Plaintiff No.2, who is the sister of Premachandran, Plaintiff No.1, and in whose share the other room was allotted. As the cause of action for filing the eviction petition had arisen in 1971 prior to the partition, which was effected in 1981, the suit for eviction was filed by the transferee from Premachandran in whose favour one room was allotted and Plaintiff No.2, who owned another room by virtue of the partition.

The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit for eviction. They neither denied title of the plaintiffs nor relationship of landlord and tenant. They, however, denied that they had created any sub-tenancy as alleged by the plaintiffs.

Before the Rent Controller, after framing of issues, parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court, on a consideration of evidence brought on record, dismissed the suit recording a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the case of sub-tenancy.

Against the judgment of the Rent Controller, an appeal was preferred. The appellate court took the view that though initially there was a single tenancy in respect of both the rooms, as a result of the partition one each of the two shop rooms were allotted in the shares of two different co-sharers. Hence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek eviction in relation to both the shop rooms and they could seek eviction only in relation to that shop room in respect of which sub-tenancy was actually created. On the basis of that finding, the appellate court allowed the appeal in-part and granted decree for eviction in relation to the room which was the subject-matter of sub-tenancy.

Against the said judgment of the appellate court, separate revision applications were filed both by the landlords and the tenants. The High Court concurred with the reasoning of the appellate court for granting a decree for eviction only in relation to the room in respect of which sub-tenancy was created. It, however, confirmed the finding recorded by the appellate court that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving the case of sub-tenancy. Against the said judgment, Civil Appeal No.6391 of 2002 and Civil Appeal No.7749 of 2002 have been filed by the tenants and the landlords respectively by way of special leave.

We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties in these appeals.

So far as the finding in relation to creation of sub-tenancy is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants could not point out any infirmity therein. He could not show that the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court on the question of creation of sub-tenancy was perverse and, therefore, liable to be interfered with by the High Court in revision. We are, therefore, of the view that no ground is made out for any interference with the finding on the question of creation of sub-tenancy.

Now, the question arises as to whether the