Sankaran, J.

The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The landlord contended that the petition schedule building was purchased by him as per Document No.23 1/1994 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam from Pradeep P. Thomas. The tenant was duly informed about the transfer of ownership. The tenant is occupying the building from May 1, 1993 onwards as per the agreement, wherein there is a stipulation that the tenant shall not sublease the building. In contravention of the stipulation against subletting, the tenant sublet a portion of the petition schedule building to Punnoose Mathew for running a public telephone booth. The landlord came to know of the subletting only in December, 1998. Another portion of the building was sublet to Sheriff to ran real estate business and yet another portion was sublet to Sham for a computer centre. It was contended by the landlord that the tenant was collecting rent from the sublessees and was enriching himself. Ext.A-4 lawyer notic