The District Judge had the jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the finding made by the subordinate authorities regarding the sub-letting claim.

1. Respondent No.1 before the Rent Controller, namely, the tenant, is the petitioner before me.

2. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the first respondent from the premises on two grounds, namely, (1) that the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own occupation and (2) that the tenant, the first respondent, has sub-let the premises to respondents 2 and 3 before the Bent Controller.

3. The plea set up by the tenant, namely, the first respondent, was that respondents 2 and 3 are only his servants and that the coffee hotel that is being run in the premises belongs to the first respondent himself. So far as the question of bona fide claim by the landlord, that again was challenged by the first respondent.

4. It is seen that respondents 2 and 3 do not appear to have taken any part in these proceedings.

5. The question of the landlord requiring the premises for bona fide occupation is now concluded against the landlord by the concurrent findings of the Bent Controller, the Appellate Authority and also of the learned District Judge.

6. But so far as the question of sub-letting is concerned, the Bent Controller and also the Appellate Authority have accepted the case of the tenant, the first respondent, that there has been no sub-letting as alleged by the landlord and on this ground the Bent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord and this has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.

7. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord took up the matter in revision before the learned District Judge of Trichur under the provisions of S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Bent) Control Act, 1959, namely Act XVI of 1959. The learned District Judge, after a consideration of the materials on record has not chosen to accept the finding of the subordinate authorities so far as the question of sub-letting is concerned. As mentioned by me earlier, the learned District Judge has confirmed the finding of the Bent Controller and the Appellate Authority negativing the right of the landlord to get possession of the building on the ground of his bona fide requiring it for his own occupation.

8. According to the learned District Judge, some vital pieces of evidence on record have not been properly adverted to by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority & that proper inferences which necessarily follow from a consideration of the evidence have not been drawn by the two authorities. Therefore, the learned District Judge after a consideration of the entire evidence has differed from the conclusions arrived at by the Bent Controller and the Appellate Authority and has come to the conclusion that there has been a sub-letting as alleged by the landlord and as such has directed the eviction of the first respondent tenant from the premises.

9. It is this order of the learned District Judge that is rather very strenuously challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner.

10. Before I go into the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel, I may also refer to a preliminary objection raised by Mr. T. S. Venkateswara Iyer, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent that no revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to this Court against the order passed in revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, Act XVI of 1959. This preliminary objection need not detain me any longer because jurisdiction has been given to the District Court under S.20 and there cannot be a dispute that the District Court is a subordinate court and the orders passed by that court are liable to be revised in appropriate cases by virtue of the powers vested in this court under S.115 of the Code of Civil 'Procedure. Even otherwise, there are numerous authorities of the Madras High Court that the High Court has got the right to entertain a revision under S.115 C.P.C. against orders passed by revisional autho