Tenant cannot avail of acquiescence by landlord as defence.

The civil revision petition arises under the Rent Control Act. The eviction of the respondents was sought on the ground of unauthorised subletting. According to the case in the petition of the landlord, the premises belonging to him had been leased out to respondents 1 and 2 on a monthly rent of Rs.525, tenancy months computed as per English calendar about ten years prior to the filing of the eviction petition; respondents 1 and 2 had been carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Ganga Finance, Karur it was learnt by the landlord that respondents 1 and 2 sub-leased portions of the premises to respondents 3 to 5 sometime in the past; the front portion of the ground floor had been sub-leased to the third respondent, the rear portion to the fourth respondent and the first floor to the fifth respondent, the sub-lease had been made without the knowledge of the landlord and without his written consent. Since he came to know about the sub-lease arrangements, he want and met respondents 1 and 2 and questioned their conduct; they were not willing to vacate the premises even though respondents 3 to 5 had been in occupation of portions of the premises without any direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and respondents 3 to 5, they became hostile and the fourth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.600 of 1984 before the District Munsif, Karur, alleging falsely that the landlord interferred with his business highhandedly and illegally and sought injunction; and the respondents were liable to be evicted for unauthorised subletting.

2. The first respondent filed a counter denying subletting. He further stated that himself and the second respondent had been running M/s.Ganga Finance, Karur, in the property for some years, but closed the business on some personal grounds and thereafter they surrendered possession to the landlord. His further case in the counter is that respondents 3 to 5 were direct tenants under the landlord and there was no sub-lease. It is further stated that respondents 1 and 2 had paid an advance of Rs.1,000 to the landlord when they took possession of the property on lease and that the said amount was still with the landlord and he had not repaid the same in spite of repeated demands. Aggrieved by the demands made by the first respondent, the present eviction petition had been filed with false allegations.

3. The second respondent reiterated the contents of the counter of the first respondent and denied subletting.

4. The third respondent filed a counter stating that it had taken the front portion of the ground floor of petition mentioned premises from the landlord on an oral lease in the month of July, 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs.50; there was no subletting and the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the landlord and the third respondent.

5. The fourth respondent filed a counter denying subletting and alleging that in or about 1980 it took the rear portion for running yarn business directly from the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.200 that pursuant to the terms of tenancy it was also put in possession of the same portion, that there was direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and itself, that the suit had to be filed because the landlord tried to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the portion in the occupation of the fourth respondent.

6. The fifth respondent also raised similar contentions, besides stating that it became a tenant under the landlord direct in the month of October, 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.175 that there was no subletting and that the petition was liable to be dismissed.

7. The landlord filed two documents Exs.P-1 and P-2 and examined himself as P.W.1. On the side of the respondents Exs.R-1 to R-105 were marked. The first respondent was examined as R.W.1, the partner of the third respondent was examined as R.W.2 the Manager of the fifth respondent as R.W.3 and one Krishnakumar, partner of the fourth resp