The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, subtenants are excluded from the definition of tenant, and orders passed against the tenant are binding on subtenants.

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

1. This is a writ petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of Indiachallenging the order passed by the District Judge in R.C.R.P. 122 of 1983.The landlord is the petitioner. The petition relates to a two storeyed building inBroadway, Ernakulam. This building belonged to his father and as per Ext Algift deed it was given to the petitioner on 30-3-1973. This building was takenon rent originally on 1-9-65 by the father of respondents 8 and 9 herein forconducting a business in the name "Indian Hardware Stores". Monthly rentpayable was Rs.750/-. Petitioner contended before the Rent Control Court thathe wanted the building in question for conducting a stationery business. Thepetition was originally filed against respondents 8 and 9 alleging that thepetitioner bona fide required the building for own occupation. Respondents 8and 9 contended that the building in question was taken on rent by themrepresenting a firm of partners by name "T. H. Ibrahim Karim and Company"for the purpose of doing business in the name and style "Indian HardwareStores" and that the partnership consisted of others also. It was alleged thatthe 8th respondent had retired from the firm and the business was beingconducted by respondents 9 and 4. So, the 4th respondent was subsequentlyimpleaded and this was followed later by impleadment of respondents 5 to 7also. These respondents contended that the lease was obtained on behalf ofthe firm "Indian Hardware Stores" and respondents 8 and 9 retired from thebusiness and the same is being carried on by respondents 4 to 7. Therespondents denied the bona fide requirement of the petitioner.

2. The Rent Controller held that the lease was in favour of respondents 8 and9 and they had filed an earlier application for fixation of fair rent and thereforethe contention that the lease was in favour of a firm was rejected. Thepetitioner's father was having stationery business nearby and the petitionerwas doing business alongwith his father and therefore the Rent Controller heldthat he did not bona fide require the building. This order was challenged by allthe contesting respondents including respondents 8 and 9. The appellateauthority held that respondents 8 and 9 are the real tenants and that thepetitioner bona fide required the building for own occupation. This order waschallenged by respondents 4 to 7 before the District Judge, Ernakulam. TheDistrict Judge by exercising the revisional jurisdiction set aside the orderpassed by the appellate authority and held that the petitioner did not requirethe building and that the petition was only a pretext for evicting therespondents. This finding is challenged in this proceeding.

3. Two fold contentions have been urged by the petitioner's counsel. At first itis contended that the District Judge was not justified in interfering with theorder passed by the appellate authority. The District Judge had onlysupervisory jurisdiction and the reappraisal of the whole evidence and comingto a different conclusion altogether was illegal and unjustified in the facts of thecase. The next contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is thatrespondents 4 to 7 are subtenants and they are bound by the order of evictionpassed against respondents 8 and 9 and they have no right to file a revisionagainst the order of the appellate authority.

4. Under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965) atenant has been defined under S.2(6) and it specifically says that it does notinclude a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant. So, thedefinition of tenant as such does not take in a subtenant within its purview.Under S.11(4)(i) the landlord is given the right to recover possession of thebuilding if the tenant after the commencement of this Act, without the consentof the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sublets the entire buildingor any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so.Proviso to S.11(4)(i) is to