Allegation of sub-letting by tenant to be proved by landlord.

The tenants are the petitioners herein.

.2. The petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0 (2)(ii)(a) and l0(2)(iii)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. The petition premises is situated at No.31, Nainappan Street, Mannadi, Madras-1. The petitioners herein are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on the monthly rent of Rs.1,000 payable according to English calendar month. According to the landlord, the tenants sublet the petition premises to the respondents 6 to 8 without the written consent of the landlord. Further, according to the landlord, the tenants without the permission of the landlord put up a construction in the open space on the first floor. Therefore, according to the landlord, the value and utility of the building are materially impaired. Hence, the petition was filed under Secs.l0(2)(a)(ii) and 10(2)(iii)of the Act.

4. The tenants filed the counter stating that there is no subletting to the respondents 6 to 8 as alleged by the landlord. According to the tenants, the rent is Rs.500 per mensem for both residential and non-residential portions. Even though the landlord agreed to give the entire portion, but he did not do so. Hence, the tenants initiated proceedings against the landlord and the same is now pending. According to the tenants, the landlord permitted the tenants to put up the superstructure on the first floor and also agreed to pay the expenses incurred by the tenants for such construction. Since the landlord refused to pay the expenses incurred by the tenants, the tenants filed a suit and the same is now pending. Hence, as a counter blast the landlord filed the present falsely alleging that the tenants sublet the petition premises to the respondents 6 to 8 without the written consent of the landlord. According to the tenants, no portion was sublet to the respondents 6 to 8 as alleged by the landlord. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenants sublet a portion of the petition premises to the 6th respondent. Hence as this ground evicting was ordered. Insofar as the acts of waste is concerned, the Rent Controller held that the landlord failed to establish that the tenants committed acts of waste. Accordingly, the petition for eviction filed on the ground of acts of waste was dismissed.

.6. On appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of subletting. So also, the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the landlord failed to establish that the tenants committed acts of waste. Accordingly, the order passed by the Rent Controller on this ground was also confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenants. The first ground in this revision relates to eviction ordered on the ground of subletting. According to the tenants, there is no subletting as alleged by the landlord in the present case. Originally, the landlord alleged that a portion of the petition premises was sublet to the respondents 6 to 8. But, ultimately the landlord failed to establish that a portion of the petition premises was let out to the respondents 6 and 7. The authorities below without appreciating the facts arising on this aspect in proper perspective, held that the tenants sublet a portion of the petition premises to the 6th respondent only. There is no evidence on the side of the landlord to show that the 8th respondent was in possession of the petition premises. The tenants did not part with the legal possession of the rented premises in favour of the 6th respondent. The 8th respondent in the sale deed executed in her favour mentioned her address as that of the petition premises. The unilateral act on the part of the 8th responden