Ramkumar, J.

In this revision filed under sec.20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent control) Act 1965, (hereinafter referred as to “the Act” for short), the petitioner/landlord who is the manager of the Kanyaka Paremeswari Devaswom, Arakurussi, Mannarkad, challenges the judgment dt. 22.12.1999 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad, dismissing the rent control petition for eviction.

2. Since the provisions of the Act had not been extended to the area in question, the petitioner/Devaswom had originally filed a suit for eviction as OS 641/1966 before the Musifff’s Court, Perinthalmanna. The said suit was decreed and confirmed in appeal filed as OS 47/1975 before the District Court, Palakkad, as per Ext.A5 judgment dt. 19.12.1975 and further confirmed in second appeal by this court in SA 290/1975 as per Ext.A19 judgment dt. 13.11.1978. In the meanwhile, the Act was extended to the area in question and therefore this court had affirmed the decision of the lower appellate court to the effect that the plaintiff/Devaswom would be entitled to actual possession only on making out a ground for eviction under sec.11 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner Devaswom filed RCP 3/1991 before the Rent Control Court, Mannarkad.

3. Eviction of the four respondents to the rent control petition was sought on the ground of bona fide own occupation under sec.11(3), sub-letting under sec.11(4)(i), destructive user under sec.11(4)(ii), tenants having acquired possession of other alternative building under sec.11(4)(iii), reconstruction under sec.11(4)(iv) and additional accommodation under sec.11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, after hearing both sides, framed five points for consideration and they consisted of only three grounds for eviction viz. bona fide own occupation under sec.11(3), subletting under section 11(4) (i) and destructive user of the premises by the tenant under section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. During the pendency of the rent control petition, the 1st respondent died and his widow and children were impleaded as supplemental respondents 5 to 11 as per the order passed in IA No.240/1992. After trail, the Rent Control Court as per order dt. 11.6.1996 disallowed eviction claimed under sec.11(4)(ii) of the Act, but ordered eviction on the other two grounds, after holding that the tenant is not entitle to the protection of the second proviso to sec.11(3) of the Act. The subletting, which was found, was by the 1st respondent in favour of respondents 2 to 4 who are the children of the deceased brother of the 1st respondent.

4. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the ‘Rent Control Court, respondents 2 to 4 to RCP 3/91 preferred an appeal as RCA 46/96 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. As per judgment dt. 2.12.1999 the appellate authority allowed the appeal and reversed the order for eviction passed by the Rent Control court under sec.11(3) and sec.11(4) (i) and dismissed the rent control petition in toto. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the petitioner/landlord has filed this revision. Aggrieved by the finding of the lower appellate authority that there was no abatement of the rent control petition due to the death of the 1st respondent to the RCP and due to the belated impleadment of his legal representatives, respondents 1 to 5 in this revision representing the alleged sub-lessees have also preferred a memorandum of cross-objections challenging the said appellate finding.

5. We heard senior advocate Sri P.N.K. Achan appearing for the revision petitioner, adv. Sri M.C. Sen appearing for respondents 1 to 5 who represent the alleged sub-lessees and Adv. Sri M. Krishnakumar appearing for respondents 6 to 12, who are the legal representatives of the original 1st respondent to the rent control petition.

6. Adv. Sri P.N.K. Achan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, made the following submission before us in support of the revision:

The memorandum of cross-objection is n