The main legal point established is that for sub-letting to be proven, there must be a transfer of exclusive right to enjoy the property and parting of legal possession, and mere occupation is not sufficient to constitute sub-letting.

Raj an, J.

Petitioners are tenants. The first respondent filed the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Controller for eviction of the building mainly on the ground that the first revision petitioner sub let the building to revision petitioners 2 and 3 without the knowledge and consent of the first respondent and against the provisions of the lease deed. The case of the revision petitioners is that there was no sub lease as alleged in the Rent Control Petition. Re vision Petitioner No.1 is the Karshaka Union represented by its secretary Sri. M. Vasudevan, Revision Petitioner No. 2 is the Private Operators Sub Association, Alappuzha district and third Revision Petitioner is the Lorry and Motor Vehicles Owners Union, Cherthala Taluk. The second revision petitioner is represented by its Secretary, who is none other than Sri. M. Vasudevan. The third revision petitioner is represented by its Vice President who is also the same Sri. M. Vasudevan. Thus, he being the principal office bearer of all the three Unions, the premises were being jointly used by the three Unions. Therefore, it was contended that there was no parting of possession by the first revision petitioner in favour of revision petitioners 2 and 3. The further case is that the legal possession of the rented building still continues with the first revision petitioner.

2. The first respondent was examined as P.W. 1. According to the first respondent, when he went to the building he found the boards of petitioners 2 and 3. He also saw the phone belonging to the third revision petitioner. He also saw the workers of revision petitioners 2 and 3 sitting there, but he did not know who are all the workers silting there on behalf of revision petitioners 2 and 3. Though he saw two persons sitting there, he did not ask the name and other details of those persons. The evidence of the first revision petitioner as D.W.1 is to the effect that the office of revision petitioners 2 and 3 are allowed to function in the same building because Sri. M. Vasudevan is the principal office bearer of all the three Unions. He also deposed that he had never sub let the building to revision petitioners 2 and 3. It is the first revision petitioner who is paying rent to the first respondent. He was emphatic in stating that counter-respondents 2 and 3 were not paying the rent.

3. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction holding that the first revision petitioner had sub let the schedule room to second and third revision petitioners. The reasons which prompted the Rent Controller to come to the above conclusion was that the revision petitioners had separate furniture and separate office Secretary and that all the Unions are maintaing separate minutes and separate accounts for their business. The Rent Control Court also relied on the statement of CPW 1 that the first revision petitioner is getting some amount by way of donation from the other two unions.

4. The appellate authority confirmed the above finding of the Rent Control Court relying on the same reasoning adopted by the Rent Control Court. The argument of Snil Kochuthressia, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in that both the authorities have not approached the question of sub-letting in the proper legal perspective. The question whether there is legal transfer of possession of the premises by the first revision petitioner in favour of revision petitioners 2 and 3 has not been considered by the two authorities. The question whether the first revision petitioner is still in legal possession of the premises, which was proved by evidence was also not properly dealt with by the two authorities. The burden of proving the subletting is heavily on the first respondent and he has not discharged the above burden by conclusively proving that first revision petitioner has legally transferred his possession in favour of revision petitioners 2 and 3.

5. S.105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines lease as a transfer of a right to enjoy the p