PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

1. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant, a partnership firm by name "Liji Agencies", is the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), subletting under Section 11(4)(i) and cessation of occupation without reasonable cause under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord had invoked the ground under Section 11(3) also but that ground does not survive any longer.

2. Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted at the very outset that as the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is a tentative one, it will suffice, if the petitioners are given sufficient time to avail the remedy under Section 11(2)(c). Therefore, we confirm the eviction order passed under Section 11(2) (b) and grant to the revision petitioner two months time from today for getting the same vacated under Section 11(2)(c).

3. In this revision we are concerned with the correctness of the eviction order passed under Section 11(4) (i) and under Section 11(4)(v). The one argument which was seriously advanced before us by Sri.P.V.Chandramohan was that the combined eviction order passed by the statutory authorities under Section 11(4)(i) and under Section 11(4) (v) is unsustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, there is inherent inconsistency between grounds under Section 11(4)(i) and Section 11(4)(v) and therefore, a combined order under these sub sections cannot be passed. Strong reliance was placed by Sri.P.V.Chandramohan on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sreekumar v. Parameswaran (2005(4) KLT 492) which takes the view that if the building is occupied by a sub tenant, there cannot be any cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v).

4. Sri.V.Santharam, the learned counsel for the respondents per contra would oppose the argument of Sri.Chandramohan and submit that the Division Bench in Sreekumar's case (supra) does not lay down that under no circumstances a combined order cannot be passed under Section 11(4)(i) and under Section 11(4)(v). According to the learned counsel, what was held in that judgment was only that in the facts which obtain in that case eviction order could have been passed only under Section 11(4)(i).

5. Sri.Santharam placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in P.V. Subbu Chetty & Sons v. Madras Stainless Emporium (1979(1) MLJ 504) wherein the Madras High Court held that in a case where the entire building or part thereof is transferred by the tenant in favour of the alleged sub lessee and the tenant is no longer in occupation of any part of the building concerned both subletting as well as cessation of occupation will stand established.

6. Before we proceed to appreciate the submissions and answer the legal question raised, it is necessary to examine the rival pleadings and the case that has been brought out in evidence. The building in question had been let out to M/s Liji Agencies, who conducted business in cosmetics and sweets in the building over a long period of time. At about the time of commencement of the Rent Control Petition the above business had come to an end. Instead several other business activities such as motor servicing, auto consultancy, courier service and marriage bureau were being conducted in the building. The landlord's allegation was that the tenant firm - "Liji Agencies" had become defunct and that its partners are not in occupation of the building at all and that this cessation of occupation is without reasonable cause. There was a further allegation that it was the alleged sub lessee's viz. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the RCP (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) who are in occupational possession and it is they who are conducting the activities presently seen conducted. The specific defence raised by the tenant to the grounds of cessation of occupation and subletting were the following:-

1) The firm no longer conduc