The main legal point established is that the landlord's case of sub-letting must be proved, and the tenant has the burden to establish the jural relationship with the sub-tenant. The court also clarified that previous consent for sub-letting does not grant the right for subsequent sub-letting without the landlord's consent.

1. Both these revisions arise out of a proceeding initiated by a landlord under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2 of 1965, (for brevity the Act) for eviction of a tenant from a building situated within the Corporation of Trivandrum.

2. The three grounds relied on by the landlord for eviction are: (a) default in the payment of rent; (b) sub-letting of the premises by the tenant to third parties; and (c) necessity for reconstruction of the building. The tenant denied all the grounds. Arrears were, however, deposited during the pendency of the action.

The Rent Control Court refused to accept the landlord's case that the building needed reconstruction, but it found that the tenant had sublet the premises to one Krishnan Nair, and consequently eviction was ordered on that ground. Both sides were not satisfied with that decision, and two appeals were filed. Both the appeals were dismissed; and two corresponding revisions also met with the same fate. The tenant has filed C. R. P. 2148/75 against the order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting, while the landlord has filed C. R. P. 152/1976 challenging the finding regarding the necessity for reconstruction of the building.

3. In CRP. 2148/1975 the revision petitioner tenant challenges the order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting on two grounds. It is contended that though it has been concurrently found by the authorities below that one Krishnan Nair has been inducted into the ground floor of the building, a sublease within the meaning of S.1 1(4)(i) of the Act has not been positively proved by the landlord. The revisional authority found that portions of this building were occupied by different persons on short intervals, but that authority did not pay much importance to that aspect because it thought that the occupation of the ground-floor by Krishnan Nair alone is sufficient to constitute sub-letting for attracting S.11(4) (i). That Krishnan Nair is in exclusive occupation of the ground floor of the building in question is not disputed before me. According to the revision petitioner apart from that fact the landlord has not pleaded or adduced evidence regarding the terms and conditions under which Krishnan Nair was inducted into the property by the tenant. I doubt whether the onus cast on the landlord under S.11(4)(i) of the Act goes to that extent. I may in this connection advert to one passage in the decision reported in Ulliiveetil Abu v. Beebi C. P. (ILR 1969 2 Kerala 575 at p. 585):

"While the initial onus of proving subletting or a transfer of the leasehold is on the landlord, once the Court is satisfied that there has been a transfer of possession the onus may shift and the tenant, within whose special knowledge the facts explaining the manner in which such possession has been transferred lie, may have to bear the burden thereafter."

There has undoubtedly been a transfer of possession of a portion of the premises by the tenant, and the terms and conditions under which such a transfer was made will be known only to the transferor and the transferee and not to the landlord. It is for the tenant in such cases to establish the jural relationship as obtained between him and his transferee. In this case this particular aspect is of some importance because the tenant put forward a definite case regarding the occupation of the premises by Krishnan Nair. According to the tenant the hotel business conducted there by Krishnan Nair was carried on in partnership with the revision petitioner-tenant. That part of the tenant's case has not been proved by acceptable evidence, and the authorities below have concurrently found that the alleged partnership has not been proved. I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding.

4. In the nature of the pleadings and the evidence in the case only two propositions came up for consideration before the authorities below, namely, whether there is a sub-lease of the premises by the tenant to Krishnan N