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 fav