The burden of proof is on the landlord to establish objectionable subletting and absence of consent, and the subtenant has the right to challenge the eviction order.

U.L. Bhat, J.

1. Landlord of the building involved in this case is the revision petitioner.

2. The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was in arrears but that ground for eviction under S.11(4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) was not established. However, he dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord claiming to be the manager of the joint family has no status to sue in as much as there was severance in status of the family.

3. In appeal the Appellate Authority found that the revision petitioner is a landlord as defined in S.2(3) of the Act and could legitimately maintain the eviction petition. Thereupon the learned Appellate Authority ordered eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The District Judge as the statutory revisional authority under S.20 of the Act set aside the order of eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. Hence this revision by the landlord.

4. The disputed building belonged to the erstwhile joint family of which the revision petitioner was the manager. In a suit filed by a member of the family, a preliminary decree for partition has been passed. Nevertheless, since the revision petitioner has been collecting the rent of the building from the tenant and has been found to be entitled to collect the rent in previous proceedings, has been held to be entitled to maintain the petition, by the learned Appellate Authority and the revisional authority and this finding is not challenged now by the respondent.

5. Under S.11(4)(i) of the Act a landlord could seek an order of eviction against the tenant if the tenant after the commencement of the Act, without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sublets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so: provided that an application under this clause shall not be made for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy unless the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and the tenant has failed to terminate the transfer of the sublease, as the case may be, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof. In the partition suit in the family O.S. No. 29/50 Advocate Sri. Chandran was appointed Receiver. Admittedly it was the Receiver who let out the building to one Valliyammal, the mother of the 7th respondent herein (first respondent before the Rent Controller). Admittedly the lease was some time prior to 1958, though the date of the lease was not pleaded by either side. Admittedly Valliyamma sub let the building to Ramamoorthy (1st respondent herein) and Narayanan, respondents 2 and 3 before the Rent Controller. Narayanan is dead. Respondents 2 to 6 are his legal representatives. The authorities below have uniformly held that the sublease was granted to Valliyamma on 15-8-1958. From the evidence of the landlord examined as P.W.I it is seen that the Receiver was discharged in 1970.

6. It is the contention of the landlord that the lease in favour of Valliyamma did not confer on her any right to sublet the building and that the Receiver had not consented the subletting and therefore the subletting in the case is an objectionable one as contemplated under S.11(4)(i) of the Act. The respondents denied these contentions and contend that the subletting was done with the consent of the Receiver. There was no specific contention in the counter statements filed that the lease did confer on Valliyamma the right to sublet the building.

7. The landlord was examined as P.W.1. One of the subtenants was examined as R.W.I. The other subtenant's wife Thathayamma was examined as R.W.2. Ext. A2 is the notice sent ok behalf of the landlord and Exts. A3 and A4 are the replies. The learned Rent Controller held that the evidence of R.Ws.l and 2 was sufficient to establish that the Receiver consented to the sublease and the denial b