Petition, for eviction on the ground of sub-setting of premises by the tenant.

The first respondent-tenant in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1981 on the file of the Controller (District Munsif), Tiruppur is the petitioner in this civil revision petition petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to in the R.C.O.P.

2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the first respondent-

partnership firm and respondents 2 to 7 in the said R.C.O.P., who are the partners of the first firm Sec. 10(2)(a) and (b) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned building. The first respondent partnership firm and the respondents 2 to 7 are the partners of the first respondent The respondents as partners of the first respondent-firm entered into a registered agreement in respect of the petition mentioned A schedule property on 30.8.1976 and also entered into another lease agreement on 30.4.1977 in respect of the petition mentioned B Schedule property. It is specifically agreed in the lease agreements that the respondents should not sublet the petition mentioned premises to any other parson without the consent of the petitioner. Contrary to the terms of the lease agreements the respondents have sublet a portion of the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders and on the ground subletting the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition mentioned premises. The respondents also committed acts of waste impairing the utility and value of the building.

3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: The respondents took the demised property on lease for running a Varukadalai mill. The respondents have not sublet any portion of the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders. M/s.Ambika Traders is only a sister-concern of Venkateswara Mills. The respondents have permitted the sister concern M/s.Ambika Traders to use the petition mentioned premises along with the respondents as the sister concern M/s.Ambika Traders, was started for the purpose of purchase of greengrams on behalf of the respondents. There is no parting with legal possession of the premises by the respondents. The partners of the first respondent firm and the partners of M/s.Ambika Traders are close relations. Originally M/s.Ambika Traders was started with four partners and it was subsequently reconstituted increasing the number of partners to nine and most of the partners of the first respondent firm have become the partners of the reconstituted firm of M/s.Ambika Traders. M/s.Ambika Traders are not put in exclusive possession of any portion of the petition mentioned premises by the respondents.

4. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, found that the respondents sublet the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders and consequently passed an order of eviction against the respondents. The rent controller found that the respondents have not committed any acts of waste.

5. As against the order of the Rent Controller the respondents filed R.C.A.No.9 of 1989 before the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Tiruppur. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondents sublet the petition mentioned property and dismissed the appeal. As against the judgment the Appellate Authority the respondents have filed the present civil revision petition.

6. Mr.V.K.Muthuswamy, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondent-firm and M/s.Ambika Traders are sister-concerns; the respondents never parted with possession of the petition mentioned premises; M/s.Ambika Traders was never put exclusive possession of any portion of the petition mentioned premises, M/s.Ambika Traders being a sister-concern, of the first respondent-firm is only permit