Balkrishnan,J.

1. The two points that arise for consideration in this revision petition filed u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965 are;

(1) Whether mere formation of a partnership by the tenant without proof of actual conduct of the business as a partnership concern would enable the tenant to stall a petition for eviction on the ground of sublease.

(2) Whether acquiescence even if capable of being inferred from the circumstances would disentitle the landlord from claiming eviction u/s 11(4)(1).

2. The alleged subtenant has filed this revision petition u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965, challenging the order of eviction passed u/s 11 (4)(i) of the Act. The first respondent in this revision is the landlord. The 2nd respondent is the tenant. The petition schedule building was originally taken on rent by the 2nd respondent's father. On his death the 2nd respondent and the landlord executed Ext.A1, a fresh rent deed on 1.6.00. The first respondent/landlord alleged that the 2nd respondent/tenant sublet the petition schedule building to the revision petitioner without his consent. Demanding termination of sub tenancy notice was issued by the landlord to the tenant as required under the proviso to S.11(4)(i). Contending that subtenancy was not terminated, the petition was filed.

3. The tenant/2nd respondent remained exparte. The revision petitioner, the alleged sub-tenant, alone filed counter contending that there was no subtenancy as alleged by the landlord. It was contended that the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent along with two others entered into a partnership under the name and style 'Geetha Traders' with effect from 1-4-2000 for which necessary permissions, registration and sanctions were obtained. It was contended that 'Geetha Traders' is the actual tenant in possession of the petition schedule building. It was also contended that the landlord is residing in the building adjacent to the petition schedule shop room and he used to visit the petition schedule shop room regularly and thus he had acquiesced in the revision petitioner occupying the premises and since there was acquiescence the landlord is not entitled to get an order of eviction u/s 11(4)(i). It was also contended that it was in fact the partnership firm which was paying rent to the landlord. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the Rent Control Court found against the case of sublease pleaded by the landlord and thus dismissed the petition.

4. The learned Appellate Authority found that Ext.B4 partnership deed is only a camouflage and that there was no sharing of profits. The fact that the tenant/2nd respondent remained exparte and did not explain how the partnership was constituted or how the business was conducted etc. was also duly taken note of by the learned Appellate Authority to hold that the case of partnership set up by the subtenant is not acceptable and found that the case of sublease set up by the landlord is true and thus an order of eviction was passed u/s 11(4)(i).

5. Sri.K.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Authority failed to note that Ext.B5, sale tax registration in respect of the business conducted in the petition schedule building was given to M/s 'Geetha Traders' and that the rent was also paid by the firm. The further fact that the business was conducted in the petition schedule building from 1-6-2000 and that the RCP was filed only in the year 2008 was also not considered by the learned Appellate Authority in its correct perspective. It was further contended that in fact a power of attorney was executed by the tenant/2nd respondent Mr.Sreekandan in favour of the revision petitioner Muraleedharan Nair for the conduct of the business and for doing whatever is required for the same, but that was also not properly considered by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no