The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy of the State to encourage its citizens to go abroad and the expectation of their return, which influenced the court's decision.

V.V. Kamat, J.

The proceedings of this petition are under S.20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act. We are required to deal with differing conclusions by the two fact finding authorities. The trial authority - the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Thalassery, by the order dated. December 23,1994 in Rent Control Petition No. 8/1994 held in favour of the tenant, as far as the present proceedings are concerned, that the landlady would not be entitled to eviction on the ground of sub-lease under S.11(4)(i) of the Rent Control Act. The landlady's appeal before the Rent Control appellate Authority - the Principal District Judge, Thalassery, by the Rent Control Appeal No. 26/1995 came to be allowed by the judgment dated November 12,1996 ordering eviction on the ground of sub-letting. We have before us the tenant as the petitioner.

2. The proceedings before us afford an occasion and opportunity to resort to a process of blending. It is the policy of the State literally to encourage its citizens to go abroad. Although the specific aspect speaks about the Government Servants, it is seen that going abroad well nigh for a period of 15 years is reasonably extended for more number of years. It is regarded as the grant of leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad or within India and such facility is well understood in terms of the retention and protection during the said period of employment in the Slate. Another facet also speaks of encouragement in the matter of purchase of land and building houses, on the basis of circulars and directions in the nature of executive orders to show the same spirit of encouragement in the matter of purchase-of property and construction of houses, the use of the said advantage out of the acquisition abroad has also to be meaningfully considered. It is the encouragement of the State to see its people going abroad for better and brilliant prospects of earning money in the context of their stay there. It is further in the process that those who earn abroad are further encouraged if their acquisition gets into local soil by way of investment by purchasing property and construction of houses. Persons going abroad are understood by the State to be coming back and this period of coming back has also to be understood in the context of the policies. The experience of others also thinking of going abroad is also to be understood as an extension wherever necessary of the spirit. In otherwords, the approach is in consonance with the religious Israeli attitude of expecting every citizen of this State to look back to this State as the Biblical land of milk and honey. Even otherwise, to a guest artist of appreciation like me, the greenery throughout the year, personal rapture that is received by landing on the land of this State would be more than sufficient to understand this State as encouraging the citizens to go wherever they want with a frequent and intermittent looking back to this State as a result of the situation of continuous temptation. An exercise of personal choice would certainly be favourable if other difficulties could have been outweighed. The State, as I understand, has an attitude of encouragement to its citizens not only to go beyond the seven seas, but also to look around in other States with a perennial attitude of a sweeping bird keeping an eye on its children. This approach, as we stated at the outset, requires its proper blending with an approach of appreciation of evidence dealing with situations more or less similar, in an attempt to understand as to whether a person who is abroad for a period of six years, nay, some years more could be understood to have given a farewell to this State, to be understood as not having in intention of returning any time. Factually only yesterday (CRP 529/1992) we had a factual specimen of the landlord returning after a period of 16 years who persuaded us to give a right to contest because the decisions went against him on the testimony of his holder of