Sub-tenants, even with the landlord's permission, cannot claim the same protections as the original tenants under the Rent Control Act, and their possession can be a ground for eviction if the landlord's need for own occupation is genuine and the tenants have a sufficient building in their possession.

1. Petitioners challenge the common order passed by the District Court, Ernakulam, in R.C.R.P. Nos. 111/86 and 9/87. Proceedings were initiated by the first respondent under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to recover buildings bearing Door Nos. 2600 and 2602 in Ward No. 37 of Cochin Corporation from respondents 2 and e, tenants of the building, and petitioners who are the sub-tenants. Recovery was sought u/ Ss.11(e),11(4) (iii) and 11(5) of the Act. That claim of the first respondent was disputed by the tenants and the sub-tenants. By Ext.P2 order the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need of own occupation asserted by the landlord is reasonable, honest and genuine and that the tenants have constructed another building which is reasonably sufficient to meet their requirements of business. It was further found that the landlord has no building of his own with facilities for expanding his present business. In view of these findings, the tenants and the sub-tenants who were respondents before the Rent Control Court were directed to surrender vacant possession of the building u/Ss.11(e) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act.

2. The original tenants challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.A. 83/84. The sub-tenants took up the matter before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 42/85. The Appellate Authority by Ext. Pe common judgment dismissed the appeals. The original tenants filed R.C.R.P. 111/ 86 challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority. The sub-tenants in their turn preferred R.C.R.P. 9/87. The Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, by Ext. P6 common order dismissed the revision petitions upholding the order of eviction passed u/Ss.11(e) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act. The sub-tenants challenge Ext.P6 order in this original petition.

3. This original petition is filed both under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, I am dealing with it only as one under Art.227. This is for the reason that the District Court functioning under S.20 of the Act acts as a civil court. It has been so held by this court in Vareed v. Mary, 1968 K.L.T. 583. This part of the judgment in Vareed's case has not been overruled by the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai,1987 (1) K.L.T. 53. In such circumstances the order of the District Court being the decision of a civil court is not liable to be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari as held in the decision of this court in Nallakoya v. Administrator (1968 KLT 60). A writ petition under Art.226 will not therefore, lie and hence this petition can be treated only as one under Art.227.

4. The District Court, the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court concurrently found that the need alleged by the landlord for recovering the building is bona fide and is not a ruse to evict the tenants and the subtenants. They have also found that the landlord has no other buildings in his possession in the city for expanding his grocery business. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties they have entered concurrent findings of fact that the landlord genuinely requires the building for his own use. The authorities below have again concurred in finding that the tenants have put up building having a plinth area of more than 2000 sq. feet by the side of Shanmugham road, that the tenants are in possession of the same and that it is sufficient to meet their requirements and hence the landlord is entitled to recover his building u/S. 11(4) (iii) of the Act. These concurrent findings of fact are based on legal evidence. By no stretch of imagination can that findings be termed as perverse. It is not possible to state that the said findings are so unreasonable that it could not have been arrived at by any judicial authority. In such a situation, those findings are not open to challenge in this original petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution.

5. Ext. P1 is the lease deed by which the buil