Sankaran, J.

The landlords are the revision petitioners. They filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act’). The Rent Control Court dismissed the Rent Control Petition on all grounds. On appeal, the decision of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The building belonged to late Alexander, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The building was leased out to the first respondent. Whether there was any rent deed is not clear and no party has produced any rent deed.

3. According to the petitioners, the monthly rent fixed was Rs.250/-. It was agreed that the tenant shall not sub-lease the building without the consent of the landlord. Rent was kept in arrears from 1.1.1988 onwards. The first respondent sub-let the building without the knowledge or consent of the landlord to the second respondent. Ext.A2 lawyer notice dated 7.12.1992 was issued to the first respondent demanding arrears of rent and termination of sub-lease. The notice was returned unclaimed as evidenced by Ext.A1. It was alleged that the petitioners bonafide require the building for own occupation to start a firewood shop and for sale of matted cudjons, bamboo etc.

4. The second respondent got himself impleaded in the Rent Control Petition. The first respondent contended that the rental arrangement commenced in May 1978 as per an oral lease. There was no prohibition regarding creation of sub-lease. The monthly rent was Rs.120/-, which was enhanced to Rs.250/- per month. Rent was not kept in arrears. The first respondent was running a saw mill under the name and style “Palathingal Saw Mill” in the building. The business fell into heavy loss and the first respondent found it impossible to run the business. An agreement was entered into between the first respondent and the second respondent whereby the second respondent agreed to run the business and share the profits with the first respondent. On 12.4.1989, late Alexander the landlord, granted permission to sub-let the building to any person of the first respondent’s choice for a period of one year as per Ext.B1 letter. That permission continued and was extended indefinitely which subsisted till the death of Alexander on 15.4.1991. It was contended that since the sub-lease was made with the knowledge and consent of the landlord, the petition is not maintainable under Section 11(4) (i) of the Act. The bonafide need was also disputed by the first respondent. The second respondent raised similar contentions as raised by the first respondent.

5. The genuineness of Ext.B1 letter was disputed by the petitioners. They filed I.A.No.796 of 1995 before the Rent Control Court to subject Ext.B1 for examination and comparison of the signature therein with the admitted signature of Alexander, by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The application was opposed by the first respondent. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application holding thus:

“The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that another document admittedly signed by the landlord is produced before Court for comparison. In that case the court can very well compare the signature and arrive at a conclusion. If the court can form an opinion by comparison with the admitted document I hold that the document need not be sent to the expert for examination. The trial of the case has not started so far. Therefore, at this stage I find that the document need not be sent for examination. The petitioner can move the court as and when it becomes necessary.”

Later, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1900 of 1997 for sending Ext.B1 for comparison by an expert. That application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court by the order dated 15.10.1998, holding that the same prayer was rejected as per the order in I.A.No.796 of 1995 and that there is no change of circumstances. The authorities below have