Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. The tenant, who faced an order of eviction, under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), in an appeal filed by the landlord against the dismissal of the claim petition by the Rent Control Court is in revision before us.

2. The respondent/landlord approached the Rent Control Court, alleging as follows:

The husband of the petitioner/tenant took the tenanted premises on lease in the year 1982 from the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner. The respondent purchased the tenanted premises in the year 2003. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner subleased the tenanted premises to one Zaccaria, receiving a monthly rent of `9,000/-. This was contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed and without the knowledge and consent of the respondent, who had atoned to the petitioner. Now, the said Zaccaria is in possession of the tenanted premises. The notice under the first proviso to Section 11(4)(i) was replied against raising unreasonable contentions which necessitated the claim for eviction.

3. The petitioner resisted the claim petition contending, among other things, that she had not subleased or transferred possession of the tenanted premises, as alleged in the petition. According to her, after the death of her husband in the year 1998, the business was continued by herself and her son. The bakery business which was being carried on, turned to be unprofitable and a business dealing with sale of duty paid items was started under the name and style 'Sun Collections Duty Paid Shop'. As the petitioner was not familiar with the nature of the new business, one Shaji who was a friend of the brother of her husband was appointed as the manager. The alleged sub lessee Zaccaria was brought in by the said Shaji, whose service was subsequently terminated on detection of disloyalty and fraudulent dealings. It was further contended that subsequently, Zaccaria was appointed as the manager who, taking advantage of the helplessness of the petitioner and her son's physical incapacity, started fraudulent and surreptitious dealings by printing his name and phone number on the bills. It was further alleged that attempts were also made to get various registrations relating to the business changed to his name. According to the petitioner, the landlord has joined hands with the alleged sub lessee and given all encouragements to get the petitioner ousted from the tenanted premises.

4. The Rent Control Court on the basis of oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and DW1 as well as Ext.B1 series to B10 and Exts.X1 to X4 accepted the contention of the petitioner which resulted in the dismissal of the claim petition. On appeal by the respondent, the said order was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment.

5. We have heard the submissions of Mr.K.P.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Mr.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel for the respondent. We have perused the records including the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court.

6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Control Appellate Authority went wrong in reversing the order of the Rent Control Court on totally unsustainable grounds. According to him, the court below has lost sight of the fact that the alleged sub lessee was, in fact, implementing the scheme of the landlord to get the petitioner evicted from the tenanted premises. According to the learned counsel, the alleged sub lessee was only a manager appointed by the petitioner to look after the business and possession of the premises continued with the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, supporting the impugned judgment would contend that convincing evidence was adduced by the respondent/landlord in discharge of his initial burden to prove that a third party was i