J.B. Koshy, J.

CRP.Nos.1786, 1888 and 1930/2002 are filed by the respondents in RCP. No.12/95 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tellicherry. CRP.No.2866/2001 is filed by the landlord who was the petitioner in the above Rent Control Petition.

2. The landlord filed a petition for eviction under section 11(3), 11(4) (i) and 11(4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") According to the landlord, the petition schedule building belongs to her and it was leased out to the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition as per registered kychit on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- on 13.9.1963. Respondents 2 and 3 in the R.C.P. are the sub tenants and first respondent sub leased portions of the building to them with the consent of then landlord. Without consent of the landlord first respondent sub leased a portion of the building to 4th respondent. It was also alleged that respondents 1 to 3 are not doing any business in the plaint schedule building. The rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.275/-. It is averred that petitioner’s son Muhammed Ali is not having any avocation. He wants to start hotel business in the plaint schedule premises. He is depending on the landlord for the said purpose. It is alleged that the first respondent has got another building nearby wherein he conducts business and he is not using the petition schedule building for any purpose.

3. The first respondent filed a counter statement stating that the rent is only Rs.220/- month, that the need alleged by the petitioner is not bonafide, that he is mainly depending on the income derive from the business conducting in the plaint schedule premises and that the 4th respondent is unknown to him. He denied sub-lease to the 4th respondent. He also stated that no other building is available in the locality which is suitable for his purpose.

4. The second and third respondents contended that they are sub-lessees with the consent of the then landlord and they also mainly depend for their livelihood on the income from the business conducting in the petition schedule building, that the need alleged by the petitioner is not bonafide and that the building is not suitable for conducting hotel business. According to the third respondent which is a co-operative society there are 380 members in the society and all the members and their family members are mainly depending on the income derived from the society and that there is no other suitable building in the locality for housing the society. The sub-lease alleged to have been granted to 4th respondent was denied by the second and third respondents also. Fourth respondent did not appear in court. After consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court allowed the application under section 11(3), 1(4) (i) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found that there is objectionable sub lease to 4th respondent, that the building is required for the bonafide occupation of the petitioner's son who has no other avocation and that the first respondent has got another building for conducting business and virtually he is not conducting any business in this building.

5. On appeal the findings under section 11(3) (i) and 11(4) (i) were confirmed but the finding under section 11(4) (iii) was set aside. Against the order of eviction passed under section 11(3) (i) and 11(4) (i), all the three contesting respondents filed Revision Petitions and the landlord filed a Revision Petition against the finding regarding section 11(4) (iii).

6. From the counter statement and evidence it is very clear that the first respondent is the tenant. Ext.A1 deed is very clear to that effect. It is also not disputed that respondents 2and 3 are sub-tenants under him and those sub leases are not objectionable leases. Their sub leases were mentioned in Ext.A1 itself. It has also come out in evidence that first respondent alone pays rent to the landlord and respondents 2 and 3 pay rent to the