First respondent/tenant in R.C.O.P.No.46 of 1988, on the file of Rent Controller, Tuticorin, is the revision petitioner.

2. Respondents herein filed the Eviction Petition against the petitioner on three grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in paying rent, (2) tenant has committed acts of waste in the property so as to reduce the value and utility of the building and (3) that she has unauthorisedly sub-let the building to the second counter petitioner named therein.

3. The only ground that survives for consideration in this Revision is, whether the tenant has unauthorisedly sub-let the building to the second counter petitioner, who is not impleaded in this revision petition.

4. The other two grounds were found against the landlords and they have become final.

5. Both the authorities below have held that the sublease alleged by the landlords is true, and that the same was without the written consent of the landlords.

6. As against the said allegation, the revision petitioner contended that the second counter petitioner has no possession over any portion of the building, and that he is also assisting her in her business.

7. The said explanation was found to be not true,