The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of section 11(4)(i) of the Rent Control Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the landlord for subletting and transfer of possession, and the tenant's duty to explain the jural relationship with the alleged subtenant.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The tenant and the alleged subtenant against whom order of eviction has been passed on the ground of subletting by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners. The allegation of the respondent landlord who sought eviction of the revision petitioners from the petition schedule building on the ground under section 11(4) (i) was that the first revision petitioner tenant to whom the building had been let out for the purpose of doing Photostat business has wound up at business and that the building has been sublet or transferred unauthorisedly to the second revision petitioner. It was alleged that the second revision petitioner is conducting job typing work in the premises and that in spite of issuance of the statutory intimation notice under the proviso to section 11(4) (i) the sublease has not been terminated and the second revision petitioner continues to be in possession of the premises.

2. The revision petitioners resisted the petition by filing a joint counter. It was contended that the first revision petitioner tenant is entitled on the terms of the lease to carry on any business of his choice and that the first revision petitioner is continuing to run the photostat business apart from conducting job works which he started recently in the tenanted premises. It was explained that in 2003 the first revision petitioner had to sell his photostat machine which had gone out of order and hence the photostat business could not be run for some time and that the said business was restarted after acquiring a new machine on 23-12-2003. It was further contended that the first revision petitioner is running his concern under the name and style "Quilon Photostat". As regards the presence of the second revision petitioner, it was contended that the second revision petitioner is only an employee of the first revision petitioner who is being paid Rs.150/- per day towards his wages.

3. The rent control petition was enquired into by the Rent Control Court and evidence at trial consisted of testimonies of PW-1 and CPWs. 1 and 2 and documents A1 to A5 and B1 to B10 apart from Exts. C1 and C2 commission report and mahazar. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the materials came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to establish that the premises had been sublet and that exclusive possession of the premises has been transferred to the second revision petitioner. Accordingly, that court dismissed the RCP. In appeal, however, on a re-evaluation of the evidence in the light of the pleadings and the law, the Appellate Authority would reverse the finding of the Rent Control Court and conclude that there has been transfer of exclusive possession of atleast a portion of the tenanted premises to the second revision petitioner and that the revision petitioners were unsuccessful in establishing that the jural relationship between them is that of employer and employee. Resultantly the Appellate Authority would allow the petition and order eviction under section 11(4) (i).

4. We have heard the submissions of Sri. T.A. Shaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri. Raja Vijayaraghavan who took notice on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Shaji would draw our attention to paragraph 5 of the rent control petition and corresponding paragraph 8 of the statement of objections filed by the revision petitioners. He drew our attention to the report submitted by the commissioner and to the depositions of PW-1, CPW-1, CPW-2 and CPW-3. He referred to Exts. B1, B2, A2 and A5 and would submit that the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority was entered on conjectures and surmises and is based on non-existent material and unjustified assumptions. The learned counsel submitted that the primary burden to prove that the tenanted premises has been sublet or transferred is on the landlord and that burden has not been discharged at all in this case by adducing cogent evidence. Mere presence of the sec