Petition filed for eviction on ground of sub-letting.

Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 126 of 1986, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner.

2. Eviction was ordered on the ground that the petitioner herein has sub-let the building to one Arputham for the purpose of carrying on his business. The concurrent finding of the authorities below is challenged in this revision.

3. The finding of the authorities below being concurrent, this Court wil1 be reluctant to interfere unless the revision petitioner is able to show that there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decisions arrived at by the authorities below. Let us see how far learned counsel for the petitioner herein has succeeded in his attempt.

4. The rental arrangement is not disputed. In paragraph 3 of the eviction petition, it is stated thus:

“...The respondent has undertaken that he will not sub let the premises to any third parties; but the respondent contravening the said agreement and without necessary permission from this petitioner had sub-let the premises to one Arputham. Hence, the respondent is liable for eviction of the demised premises on the ground of sub-letting the premises, contravening the agreement which has been entered between the parties to this petition.”

The same is answered in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter by stating thus:

“It is false to state in the petition that the respondent has sub-leased the premises to one Arputham. The respondent is a lady and she has engaged the said Arputham as a daily cooly to work in her shop. The respondent’s father-in-law was running the shop for more than 6 years from the year 1976. Subsequently after the death of the respondent’s father-in-law in the year 1982, the respondent runs the shop. The petitioner each and every year received the previous lease agreement and executed a fresh one.

The respondent states that she has not sub-leased the property to anybody and the petition is not bona fide and genuine.”

.5. For the purpose of proving the sub-lease, on the side of the landlord, P. W. 1 (landlord) was examined. He has stated that the rent was fixed at Rs.75 as per agreement and that there should be no sub-lease, but the tenant has sub-leased the building to one Arputham and, therefore, the petitioner (landlord) sent a notice on 28. 1985 (marked as Ex.P-1). The tenant did not send any reply. Arputham is not a ‘cooly’ or an employee of the tenant, but he is a sub-lessee under the tenant. In cross-examination, some questions were put to the witness, for explaining as to why a reply could not be sent. It is the case of the tenant, petitioner herein, that after receipt of Ex.P-1 notice, she along with her husband met the landlord, and it was agreed between them that the rent be enhanced and thus the matter was settled. R.W.1 is the petitioner herein. R.W.2 is Arputham, the alleged sublessee.

6. In her evidence, R.W.I has stated that her father-in-law was conducting a barber shop in the building in question and he died in the year 1972. She has also said that she has not sub-let the building. She has further said that after receipt of the notice, she along with her husband went to the meet the landlord and they agreed for a settlement by enhancing the rent, i.e., by offering to pay a sum of Rs.50 more towards rent. In her cross-examination, she has stated that documents are available with her to show that her father-in-law was running a barber shop in the building in question. She also said that Arputham is not her relation and that he is a relative of her husband. She also said that she used to pay Rs.20 to Arputham that licence stands in her name, and that she has also produced the same before court. It is also her evidence that Arputham used to acknowledge receipt of the daily wages in a sheet, and that she used to pay him after meeting all the expenses.

7. While R.W.2 was examined, he has stated that he is working in that building as a barber receiving daily wages of Rs.20. He has also said that he is not relat