Sub-tenancy is a secret arrangement.

These civil revision petitions were filed by the tenant as revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions against the common judgment and decree dated 6.7.2000 and made in R.C.A.Nos.724 and 805 of 1996 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the eviction ordered on the ground of sub letting and setting aside the order passed negativing the claim made for eviction on the ground of wilful default in R.C.O.P.No.3244 of 1991 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows:

The premises described in the rent control original petition belongs to the first respondent in both the civil revision petitions, who is the petitioner/ landlady before the Rent Control Court. The revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions, who is the first respondent before the Rent Control Court is tenant of the southern portion in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.450 under the 1st respondent herein. The premises was let out for non-residential purpose and the revision petitioner was running a cool drink shop under the name and style of “Anna Cool Bar” in the demised premises. The revision petitioner has sublet the demised premises to the second respondent herein and he is running business under the name and style of “Metro Footwear” in the demised premises. The subletting was without the consent of the 1st respondent herein. The revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent from August, 1991 to October, 1991. Therefore, the 1st respondent herein has sought for eviction of the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein on the abovesaid grounds.

3. The revision petitioner as 1st respondent before the Rent Control Court has resisted the claim made by the 1st respondent herein as petitioner/ landlady before the Rent Control Court as follows:

The revision petitioner was running Anna Cool Bar in the demised premises and there was no profit out of the above said business. Therefore, he switched over the business for sale of footwears under the name and style of “Metro Footwear”. The revision petitioner had paid rent upto July, 1991. There was demand for increase in rent in August, 1991 and this revision petitioner was not agreeable for the same. The son of the 1st respondent, who used to come and collect rent, refused to receive the rent from August, 1991. He also stopped coming to collect rent from August, 1991. The rent of Rs.1,800 for the period from August, 1991 to November, 1991 was sent by money order on 11.12.1991 and the same was returned as refused by the 1st respondent herein. This revision petitioner filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.692 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Control Court for permission to deposit the rent and the same is pending. This revision petitioner has not sublet the demised premises to the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the revision petitioner has sought for dismissal of the petition filed for eviction.

4. The second respondent herein, who is the second respondent before the Rent Control Court resisted the claim made by the 1st respondent herein on the ground that the second respondent herein is only a worker in the shop run by the revision petitioner and he is not a sub tenant. It is on this ground the second respondent has sought for dismissal of the petitioner filed by the 1st respondent herein for eviction.

5. C.S.Ragavan, son of the 1st respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked before the Rent Control Court on the side of the 1st respondent herein. The revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.R-1 to R-5 were marked in support of their case before the Rent Control Court. After considering the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has sublet th