K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Would the continuance of the landlord as a partner of the sublessee firm amount to a positive act of consent to sublease the premises is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Landlords are the revision petitioners. Eviction was sought for under Sec. 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4) (i) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition on all the grounds. Landlords took up the matter in appeal. Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

3. First respondent, stated to be a partnership firm by name “Supreme Financiers”, was inducted into the schedule building as per Ext. A1 rent deed dated 1.2.1983. Subsequently adjacent building was also built and handed over to the first respondent. The wall between the two rooms was demolished and the two rooms were being kept in the possession of the first respondent. Monthly rent of the building was Rs.500/-. Later upstair portion was constructed and the first respondent was inducted into the upstair portion also. First petitioner-landlord was working abroad. He wanted to come back to the native place and start a business in Hardware and paints. Landlord stated that he has no other suitable building of his own for starting the said business. Further landlord noticed that without his knowledge and consent first respondent has sublet the ground floor of the building to the second respondent, a partnership firm, “Supreme Trader”. Landlord came to know of the sublease only in October 1989. Consequently he issued a lawyer notice dated 7.7.1990 for terminating the tenancy with effect from 19.7.1990 and also wanted the premises to be surrendered for conducting a business of his own.

4. Tenant resisted the petition. It is pointed out that there is no bonafides in the plea of the landlord. The claim of the first petitioner-landlord that he wanted to come back to the native place and start a business of his own is only a ruse to evict the tenant. Further landlord is gainfully employed in Gulf countries and that his claim to start business in hardware and paints was not bonafide. Further it is also pointed out that after constructing the upstair portion of the building, Supreme Financiers was shifted to upstairs and the firm by name Supreme Traders has started functioning in the ground floor. In both the firms landlord was a partner. Contention was raised that since landlord was a partner in the second respondent firm Supreme Traders there is no sublease and it was with the consent and knowledge of the landlord Supreme Traders occupied the groundfloor of the building.

5. On the side of the landlord first petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced documents marked as Exts. A1 to A15. Second respondent was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the tenant first respondent got himself examined as R.W.2. Managing Partner of the first respondent firm was examined as P.W.3. Documents marked as Exts. B1 to B13 were produced. Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the need urged by the landlord was not bonafide. Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that there is no bonafide in the need urged by the landlord. If the landlord really wanted to start business he could have occupied another room which was surrendered subsequently, but was rented out. Further it was also noticed that the landlord is gainfully employed in Gulf countries for over 25 Years and that he has no intention to start business of his own.

6. We have gone through the oral evidence of P.W.1 and found to be very vague in his answers. He is uncertain about the business he is going to conduct in the petition schedule premises. Further he has also stated in his oral evidence that he has no idea about the proposed business as well. Apart from the oral evidence of the landlord he has not adduced any other independent evidence to show that the need urged is bonafide. Both the courts have concurre