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 notice dated 1-1-1999 was issued to the tenant demanding termination of the sublease. On receipt of the notice, the tenant terminated the sublease only in respect of Sheriff and Sham. The tenant did not terminate the sublease in favour of Punnoose Mathew. Hence the Rent Control Petition was filed on the allegation that the tenant sublet a portion of the building to Punnoose Mathew without the consent of the landlord.

3. The tenant filed objection wherein he contended inter alia as follows: The landlord had already filed R.C.P.No.167 of 1998 against the tenant under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Act. In that Rent Control Petition, the landlord filed an application for amendment of the Petition incorporating a plea under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Act. That application for amendment was dismissed. In that application also, the landlord had raised the contention that there was subletting in favour of Punnoose Mathew, Sheriff and Sham. The dismissal of the application for amendment in R.C.P.No.167 of 1998 would operate as resjudicata so far as the present Rent Control Petition is concerned.

4. The allegation of subletting was denied by the tenant. In paragraph 5 of the objection, the tenant contended as follows:

“5. The allegations contained in para 1, 2 & 3 of the petition are false and hence denied by the respondent. The respondent had not sublet the schedule building to any one. Even if it is found that the respondent had accommodated others in the schedule room it will not be a ground for the petitioner to seek the eviction of him in that respect since the respondent is fully entitled to do so as per the terms of the rental agreement. The petitioner had suppressed the above fact from this Hon’ble Court and filed the present petition only to harass the respondent. The allegation to the effect that the respondent had sublet the building to Mr. Ponnoose Mathew, Mr. Sheriff and to Mr. Sham are false and hence denied by the respondent. The respondent is not collecting any amount as rent from any one after subletting the schedule building to others. The allegation to the above effect is false and hence denied by this respondent.”

5. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant has sublet a portion of the petition schedule building to Punnoose Mathew. The documentary and oral evidence in the case were considered in detail by the Rent Control Court. It was also found that the present Rent Control Petition is not barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of the application for amendment in R.C.P.No.167 of 1998. The contention raised by the tenant that Punnoose Mathew is his partner was negatived by the Rent Control Court, on an analysis of the evidence in the case. It was held that the landlord has discharged the burden of proof cast on him and that