Consent under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 requires a positive act by the landlord, and implied consent cannot be inferred solely from the landlord's conduct or inaction.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment and order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the Kerala High Court, allowing the civil revision preferred by the respondent-landlord, setting aside the appellate order and holding that the Rent Controller was justified in passing an order of eviction of the tenant-appellant under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

3. The facts which do not admit of dispute are that the accommodation in uestion originally belonged to the grand father of the present respondent, who died in the year 1953. It came down to the father of the respondent who also died some time in 1976. The property ultimately came to the respondent. In the year 1949 Shri. P. George, grandfather of the respondent rented out the premises to the appellant-company which was sub-let to different sub-tenants from time to time. The respondent gave notice to the appellant on 17.11.1981 to terminate the sub-lease arrangements but the tenant failed to comply with the notice. Ultimately John P. Thomas-respondent filed R.C.P. No. 16 of 1982 in the Court of Rent Controller, Kottayam. The eviction was sought on the ground that the appellant-tenant had transferred his rights creating sub-leases in favour of several persons without the consent of the landlord. One of the sub-tenants had even been running a printing press in the premises whereas according to the case of the landlord the premises were let out to the appellant for its use as an office and godown. The petition was contested but the fact of sub-letting was not denied. On the other hand, it was pleaded that one sub-lease was created initially in 1949 itself when the premises were taken by the appellant on rent which fact was within the knowledge of the grandfather and the father of the respondent as well as that of the present respondent. Admittedly, a few more subleases were created in 1970s. Nobody ever objected to the same. It could thus well be presumed that the landlord had consented to the sub-letting which was within their knowledge. There does not seem to be any document of lease. The appellant also produced one CPW2 in evidence who had been one of the directors of the appellant company from 1946 to 1960. According to him negotiations of rental arrangement took place in his presence and the arrangement of letting included sub-letting as well.

4. The Rent Controller on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties as well as other material on the record came to the conclusion that there has not been any positive conferment of right upon the appellant to sub-let or transfer the rights under the lease. While appreciating the evidence the trial court observed that so far as the evidence of CPW2 is concerned, in cross examination, he has stated that there was no document of lease and had no knowledge whether any decision was taken by the Board of Directors of the company in regard to the tenancy or the terms thereof. He also stated that terms of rental arrangement were not discussed and there was no evidence on record which may have been kept in the records of the company regarding the same nor he remembered what happened in 1949. The trial court considering other parts of his statement as well, found that his evidence was unworthy of credence and that of an interested person and observed "therefore I disbelieve CPW2 and render his evidence as unreliable". The petition thus filed by the respondent-landlord was allowed holding that there was no consent of the landlord for sub-tenancies created by the appellant.

5. The tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. The appeal was allowed by order dated February 21, 1992. The appellate court recorded a finding to the effect "in the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary the terms of tenancy have to be gathered from the long course of conduct of the parties ever since commencement of the tenancy in 1949." The appel