Shircy V., J.

A practicing lawyer who is having his chamber and residential accommodation in the ground floor of a building is asked to vacate the premises in R.C.P. No. 92/2011 of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction as sought for by the landlady. The said order was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A. No. 97/2014. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. The legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in this revision.

2. Succinctly put, facts necessary for disposal of the case are: The landlady (herein after referred to as the respondent) claims title over tenanted premises as per settlement deed No. 4464/2000 of S.R.O. Ayyanthole. The tenanted premises originally belonged to her parents and they were residing in the building therein. While so, the settlement deed was executed in her favour and thus the property was transferred to her. She had purchased 10 cents of land lying adjacent to the tenanted premises in the year 2004 and constructed a building therein and shifted the residence of her parents from the tenanted premises to the newly constructed building. Thereafter the tenanted premises was rented out to the tenant( herein after referred to as the revision petitioner) on 1.9.2010 for a monthly rent of Rs.6500/-. Later it came to the knowledge of the respondent that the revision petitioner had sub-leased the tenanted premises to Advocate N.J. Netto, Advocate Santhosh Poduval, Advocate Biju P. Raman and Advocate Sheno Chandran illegally and they are in possession of the building along with him. A registered notice was issued stating contravention of the condition of the lease and called upon to vacate and surrender possession, but he failed to do so. The respondent after her marriage had shifted to Dubai along with her husband. Now she wants to return back to her native place along with her husband and they are intending to start an Engineering Consultancy and Construction Works. As the new building is required for their accommodation and business purpose, her parents are to be accommodated in the tenanted premises. So she requires the revision petitioner to be evicted from the tenanted premises to accommodate her parents. Hence, eviction petition was filed on the ground of sub-lease and bona-fide requirement.

3. This revision petition was strenuously contested by the revision petitioner (tenant). The allegation of sub-letting was denied. It is contended that actually the Advocates mentioned in the petition are his associates and he is running his office in the premises with his associates practicing before the High Court and Supreme Court, and there is no sub-lease as alleged. So also he has denied the allegation of bona fide need urged and contended that it is only a ruse for eviction.

4. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the finding that the need urged by the landlady/Respondent is genuine. So also it is found that the revision petitioner/tenant has sub-leased the tenanted premises and hence he is also liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The appellate authority confirmed the said findings. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been preferred.

5. Before the court below the power of attorney holder of the respondent was examined as PW1. As PW2, the Advocate Commissioner was also examined. The tenant himself was examined as RW1. RWs.2 and 3 were also examined. Exts.A1 to A6, Exts. B1 to B3, Ext. X1 and Ext.C1 were also marked.

6. The revision petitioner being an Advocate have raised all the contentions possible to resist the claim raised by the respondent in the revision petition. The first such contention before here is that the respondent is not holding title over the property and she is not having right