P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

Respondent No. 5 in R.C.P. 31 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kuthuparamba is the petitioner in this revision filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord of the building, respondent No.1 herein, filed the application for eviction under sub-ss.(2), (4)(i), 4(ii) and (4)(v) of S.11 of the Act. The application was allowed by the Rent Control Court by ordering eviction under sub-ss.(2), (4)(i) and 4(v) of S.11 of the Act. An appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein, who was found to be a sub-tenant by the Rent Control Court, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It is challenging the decision of the Appellate -Authority that this revision is filed by the person found to be a sub-tenant.

2. The building belonged to one Dr. Vijayan. It was let out by Dr. Vijayan under Ext. A2 Kychit to one Kumaran, the predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Control Court. It appears that the building was sublet by Kumaran to the present revision petitioner, impleaded as respondent No. 5 before the Rent Control Court. Dr. Vijayan thereupon issued a notice, Ext. A4, dated 3.10.1986 in terms of the proviso to S.11(4)(i) of the Act calling upon the tenant to evict the sub-tenant. Dr. Vijayan did not initiate any steps as such for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. Subsequently, under Ext. A3, dated 9.2.1994 Dr. Vijayan assigned the building to the present landlord, who is respondent No.1 before us. That landlord issued a notice in terms of the proviso to S.11(4)(i) of the Act and followed it up by a petition for eviction, inter-alia under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. He impleaded the sub-tenant as respondent No. 5 before the Rent Control Court.

3. Respondents 1 to 4, the legal heirs of Kumaran, did not seriously challenge the right of the landlord. But, respondent No. 5, the alleged sub-tenant, raised a contention that though he was originally let into possession by Kumaran, subsequently he, along with Kumaran, had approached the landlord Dr. Vijayan and Kumaran had surrendered the tenancy to Dr. Vijayan and Dr. Vijayan had orally leased out the building to respondent No. 5, the revision petitioner. Therefore, the revision petitioner was a direct tenant under Dr. Vijayan. Necessarily the Rent Control Court looked for evidence of this surrender by Kumaran and a fresh entrustment in favour of the present revision petitioner. Before the Rent Control Court there was no reliable or acceptable evidence regarding the surrender by Kumaran, set up by the revision petitioner, and a fresh lease in favour of the revision petitioner. Thus, the Rent Control Court found that the landlord was entitled to have an order for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act in view of the fact that the revision petitioner was a sub-tenant and that sub-tenancy was not one authorised by the lease or one created with the consent of the landlord. The Rent Control Court also found that rent was in arrears. It further found, in view of this conclusion, that the sub-tenant was in occupation and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a period exceeding six months. Thus, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under sub-ss.(2), (4)(i) and (4)(v) of S.11 of the Act.

4. The sub-tenant alone appealed. His right to challenge the order under S.11(2) of the Act and under S.11(4)(v) of the Act depended upon his establishing that he was not a sub-tenant as found by the Rent Control Court, but he was a direct tenant under Dr. Vijayan, the previous landlord. The Appellate Authority scrutinised the pleadings and the evidence in that regard and came to the conclusion that the Rent Control Court was justified in holding that the revision petitioner, the appellant before the Appellate Authority, was a sub-tenant and not a direct tenant under the landlord as claimed by him. In view of that finding, the Appellate Authority agreed with the Rent Control Court in ordering eviction