The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of the notice and the determination of sub-letting are crucial factors in eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a proceeding for eviction under S.11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Act for short. The landlord the applicant for eviction is the revision petitioner. Two grounds were taken for eviction, one the tenant had kept the rent in arrears and two, he had sub-let the premises to another who was carrying on tobacco business in the premises for which he had obtained a licence from the Central Excise Authority, marked as Ext. A2 in the case I might first note that the question of arrears of rent does not now arise. The Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that there was no arrears of rent and the tenant subsequently also was paying the rent so that neither before the Appellate Authority nor before the Revisional Authority under the Act, that question did not come into the tore.

2. In the objection the tenant had filed (he had filed the same along with the sub-lessee whip was the second counter petitioner before the Rent Controller's Court) it had been stated that he was conducting the business in the : remises from 1-3-1963 in the name of Hameed and Company, on the request of the petitioner, the rent was enhanced and a lease deed was executed on 12 8 1970, that a licence had been obtained for Hameed and Company in the alleged sub-lessee's name but, he, the tenant himself was conducting the business under the licence obtained for Hameed and Company and also under the licence obtained in his name. The objection as originally filed proceeded on the basis that though there was a licence in the alleged sub-lessee's name he was only a name lender. The tenant himself was doing the business in the premises Subsequently, the objection was amended, producing a partnership deed marked as Ext. B3 in the case where a plea was taken that the tenant was carrying on a partnership business in tobacco with alleged sub-tenant and the creation of a partnership with a third person would not constitute a sub tenancy. It may be noted here that in the reply notice Ext. AS issued by the tenant through his lawyer to the landlord who had sent Ext. Bl notice, his case was that he himself was doing the business in the premises under two licences, a licence in the alleged sub-tenant's name for Hameed and Co. and another licence in his own name.

3. In the nature of the questions raised in the CRP., I may note here two other contentions that the tenant bad raised before the Rent Controller and then before the appellate and revisional authorities. One such contention was that Ext. Bl notice is not in sufficient compliance with S.11(4)(i) of the Act Ext Bl notice was issued on 2211976 and is acknowledged by the tenant on 2311976. As under the statutory provision, proceedings for eviction could be initiated only on the expiry of 30 days of the receipt of notice or the refusal thereof. However, the petition was filed on 13 21976, undoubtedly well within thirty days. Therefore, a contention is raised that the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

4. The other contention is also in regard to the notice. Ext. Bl, though issued by an Advocate on behalf of the landlord is not signed by the Advocate. Hence, the tenant contends that there is no notice at all as required by law in the matter.

5. The Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that Ext. B3 does not evidence a genuine transaction and it was created for the purpose of the case. The court also held against the contentions regarding notice. It was held that the thirty days provided in the statutory provision is for the purpose of giving the tenant a period within which he could rectify the breach of contract he made in sub-letting or transferring possession of the let out premises. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, it could not be contended that the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

6. However, in appeal the Appellate Authority accepted the tenant's case th