The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court found no subletting and remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court for reconsideration of the bona fide need and entitlement of the second proviso to S.11(3).

J.B. Koshy, J

1. Both these revision petitions are filed by the tenants mother and son. Respondent landlord filed RCP No. 30 of 1987 before the Rent Control Court, Ottapalam for eviction of the tenant under S.11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and S.11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is contended that there is default in payment of rent, bona fide need of the premises in question for starting a business in stationary for landlord's son Abdul Jaleel, unauthorised subleasing of the premises by the first revision petitioner to the second revision petitioner and cessation of occupation of the premises continuously for a period of more than six months. The Rent Control Court found that the premises was sublet. It was also found that eventhough the Rent Deed was in favour of the first revision petitioner (mother) her son was in possession of the petition scheduled building and was conducting business in Kerosene under the name and style Jayabharath Oil Agencies, the rent receipts have been issued in the name of the second petitioner son and the transfer of possession from the first revision petitioner to second petitioner was acquiesced in by the landlord. The landlord has issued rent receipts in favour of the son (second revision petitioner). Therefore, Rent Control Court found that eviction cannot be ordered on the basis of subletting. With regard to the bona fide need, Rent Control Court found that there is bona fide need. Since the original tenant is the mother and son is a subtenant, he cannot claim the benefit of second proviso to S.11(3). Since first revision petitioner was not conducting business in the scheduled premises, it was found that she is not depending for her livelihood on the income from the business conducted in the scheduled premises. Since as a subtenant, the second revision petitioner cannot claim the benefit of S.11(3) following the judgment of this Court in A. V. Kammath and another v. M. K. Chandran and 5 others (1989 (1) KLJ 292) and as the mother is not conducting business but son is conducting business it cannot be stated that mother is depending upon the income from the business conducted in the petition scheduled premises, the Rent Control Court allowed the eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants under S.11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the finding of the Rent Control Court that there is no subtenancy landlord filed RCA No. 87 of 1990 and aggrieved by the finding regarding bona fide need of the landlord, the present revision petitioners filed RCA No. 88 of 1990. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants by a common judgment. Against the above common judgment these two revision petitions are filed by the tenants.

2. The revision petitioners are mother and son. One son of the first revision petitioner lost his life during the Pakistan Invasion of India in 1971 and the second revision petitioner is the only surviving son of the first revision petitioner. The first revision petitioner has got a licence from Indian Oil corporation for dealership in Kerosene oil and for conducting the above business petition scheduled premises were leased out on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Lease deed was executed by the mother first revision petitioner by Ext. A1 Rent Chit dated 1.10.1973. It is the case of the revision petitioners that the Kerosene business was conducted as Jayabharath Oil Agencies. Eventhough licence was in the name of mother all arrangements for the business were being carried out by the son second revision petitioner. The mother is looked after by the only surviving son second revision petitioner. Ext. B1 post card issued by the landlord to the second revision petitioner son shows that the payment of advance and entrustment of the building was by and to the second revision petitioner son. Exts. B2 to B46 show that rent receipts were issued to the second revision petitioner so