1. Revision petitioner, the alleged sub lessee, was the second counter petitioner before the Rent Control Court. Eviction was sought for against the counter petitioners under S.1 1(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short'the Act'). Rent Control Court dismissed the petition holding that ground of subletting was not established. On appeal by the landlord, Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and allowed eviction under S.11(4)(i).

2. For the disposal of this case, we will refer to the parties according to their status before the Rent Control Court. The landlord submitted that the petition schedule building was rented out to the first counter petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- as per the rent deed, Ext. Al dated 7.2.1994. Petitioner landlord stated that the first counter petitioner was conducting a wholesale business in rice and later conducted business in coir, coir mattress and gunny bags etc. Rent deed prohibited sub lease. Petitioner came to know that the first counter petitioner had subleased the building to the second counter petitioner on receipt of a copy of the plain in O.S. No. 350 of 1998 of the Munsiffs Court, Alwaye and an order of prohibitory injunction restraining him from forcefully evicting the second counter petitioner from the petition schedule building.

3. Petitioner then sent a registered notice dated 30.6.1998 to the first counter petitioner for terminating the sub lease with a copy to the second counter petitioner. The second counter petitioner replied on 31.7.1998 denying sublease and stated that the shop building was leased out to him by the landlord himself. Further it was also stated that the second counter is conducting a stationery shop investing huge amount in the business. The landlord then approached the Rent Control Court for eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(1) of the Act. Landlord placed reliance on Ext. Al to prove the tenancy relationship between him and the first counter petitioner. P. W. 2 was examined to prove Ext. Al document. Landlord got himself examined as P.W. 1. Apart from Exts. Al, A2 and A3, A8(a) and A8(b) were also produced.

4. First counter petitioner filed objections denying sublease. He stated that while he was conducting business he fell ill, consequently allowed the second counter petitioner to run the business. Second counter petitioner has no right over the tenanted premises and that the first counter petitioner is really the tenant. Counter statement was filed by the second counter petitioner. It was alleged that the petition was filed by the landlord in collusion with the first counter petitioner so as to evict the second counter petitioner. It was alleged that Ext. Al is a fabricated document created to show that there was landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the first counter petitioner. Further it was stated that there is no lessor lessee relationship between the counter petitioners. Tenanted premises was taken out on oral lease by the second counter petitioner from the petitioner landlord in March 1994 for conducting business in stationery items. When the building was taken on rent, monthly rent was fixed at Rs.600/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1,250/-. Further it was stated that the landlord is staying very close to the petition schedule building has been a regular visitor to the shop building. Landlord demanded exorbitant rent which the second counter petitioner could not afford which led to the filing of the present petition in collusion with the first counter petitioner describing him as a sub lessee. It was stated that the second counter petitioner had paid off the rent in full personally to the landlord who is staying very close to the tenanted premises. First counter petitioner is happened to be a close relation of the petitioner landlord and they created Ext. Al so as to oust the second counter petitioner. In order to establish his case second counter peti