V. Ramkumar, J.

Respondents 1, 2, 5 and 4 respectively in a petition for eviction filed as R.C.P. 39/1990 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad, are the revision petitioners herein. The said R.C.P. was filed by the first respondent herein for eviction of the respondents (6 in number) to the said R.C.P. on the ground of sub lease falling under section 11(4) (i) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. For the sake convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their rank before the Rent Control Court.

3. The Rent Control Court, after trial, as per order dated 19-12-1992, ordered eviction under section 11(4) (i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order for eviction respondents 1 to 3 and 5 filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad as R.C.A.No.6/1993 and as per judgment dated 5-3-2001 the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order for eviction. Hence the present revision.

4. We heard Advocate Sri. N.L. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Advocate Sri. V. Chitambaresh, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/landlord.

5. Assailing the orders for eviction, Sri. N.L. Krishnamoorthy made the following submissions before us:

The original lessee of the petition schedule shop room was one Bharathan Vaidyar who was an ayurvedic physician. He was running an ayurveda oushadasala in the petition schedule premises which is a shop room in a line building. While so, the present landlord’s brother filed a petition for eviction against all the tenants on the ground of reconstruction. Even though the matter was fought up to High Court and an order for reconstruction was secured by him,. The same could not be executed due to the town planning restrictions which were subsequently enforced. In the meanwhile, the original tenant Bharathan Vaidyar expired and his tenancy rights devolved on respondents 1 to 6 who are his widow and children. Since none of the legal heirs of Bharathan Vaidhyar had the necessary qualifications to run the Oushadasala, they had to necessarily look for other avocation in life. It was under these circumstances that the first and 3rd respondent together started a restaurant under the name and style of ‘Hotel Surya’. Since they did not have the necessary experience or expertise in conducting the said business a partnership was formed by the 3rd respondent with one Ramankutty Guptan as per Ext.B1 partnership dated 19-5-1985 for a period of 5 years from 11-05-1985 onwards. But the payment of rent rates and taxes including electricity and other charges was continued to be made by the 3rd respondent who retained the dominion over the premises. The licence for the business was also in the name of the 3rd respondent who was only learning the trade. While so, the landlord who got frustrated for not being able to get vacant possession of the premises pursuant to the original R.C.P. filed in the year 1975, caused to be sent Ext.A1 lawyer notice dated 23-4-1990 to the first respondent (widow of Bharathan Vaidhyar) alleging that respondents 1 to 6 have sub let the premises to a stranger. The name of the stranger was not disclosed in the said notice. Ext.A2 reply notice dated 17-5-1990 was sent to the landlord stating the true facts and also informing him that there was no sub lease but only a partnership which also was dissolved and that the restaurant was now run by respondents 1 and 3. In spite of that, the landlord filed the present R.C.P. 39/1990 alleging subletting to a stranger whose name was not revealed in the Rent Control Petition as well. Along with the Rent control Petition the landlord took out an ex-parte commission on 28-6-1990. The Advocate Commissioner who filed Ext.C1 report dated 13-7-1990 has stated that he did not see any of the children of Bharathan Vaidyer in the premises but saw the three sons of Ramankutty Gupthan conducting the