The Order of the Court was pronounced by

The Chief Justice.-The main facts which have led to this application are not in dispute. The premises in question belonged to the second petitioner V. Sridharan who during his minority was represented by his mother and guardian Navaneeth-ammal. It was only acting as guardian of her son that she let the building to the contesting respondent before us. Admittedly a portion of the premises was sub-let in October, 1947. It was also admitted that the sub-letting was done without the written consent of Navaneethammal, the only person who could have at that time given such consent on behalf of the owner, her son. The property was transferred to the first petitioner before us on 17th February, 1949. On 1st April, 1949, the contesting respondent attorned to the first petitioner. An application was filed both by the vendor and the purchaser for eviction on the ground that a part of the building had been sub-let after the commencement of the Act without the written consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction but on appeal the appellate authority, the Court of Small Causes, reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document