JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2020 in RCA.No.471 of 2016 on the file of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order of eviction dated 28.06.2016 made in RCOP No.250 of 2014 on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.))

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.12.2020 in RCA No.471 of 2016 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 28.06.2016 in RCOP No.250 of 2014 on the file of XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. First respondent filed petition under Section 10(2(ii)(a) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act against the petitioner and second respondent herein for eviction on the ground of sub-lease.

3. The case of the first respondent is that he is the owner of the petition mentioned property. Petitioner was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose and according to English Calendar month. Petitioner was carrying on business in the field of fancy goods. Petitioner indulged in unauthorised subletting as early as in 2002. First respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner and unauthorised sub-tenants and filed eviction petition in RCOP No.385 of 2002. Petitioner apologized for his act and gave an undertaking in writing on 08.04.2002 not to sub-lease the premises and vacate the sub-tenants. On the basis of this written undertaking, first respondent withdrew the RCOP. Now the petitioner stopped his business in the petition premises and shifted his business to Door No.47, Perumal Mudali Street. He leased out the petition mentioned building to second respondent. Second respondent is running the business under the name and style of “Sadhguru Jewellers” in the petition mentioned building. Petitioner has no right to sublease the premises, without the permission and consent of the first respondent. Therefore, this petition.

4. Petitioner filed counter stating that he is carrying on business in the petition mentioned building and he has not sublet the premises to second respondent. First respondent is in the habit of creating problems to the tenants and extract more money by way of rent. He is not aware of RCOP No.385 of 2002. First respondent took the petitioner to an Advocate and made him to sign in some blank papers and that is now being used against the petitioner. He has never written any undertaking as claimed by first respondent. He is not aware of second respondent and that he is carrying on business in the name of 'M/s.Sadhguru Jewellers'. Petitioner alone is carrying on business in the petition mentioned building. This petition is filed only to get unjust enrichment.

5. During the enquiry, before learned Rent Controller, PW.1 and RW.1 were examined. Exs.P1 to P9 and Ex.R1 have been marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence produced and submissions made on behalf of the parties, learned Rent Controller found that first respondent established the sublease of the petition mentioned building by the petitioner and ordered eviction. Petitioner filed appeal in RCA No.471 of 2016. Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has also concurred with the finding of learned Rent Controller and confirmed the finding of learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Against the said dismissal, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to warrant eviction on the ground of sublease, landlord must establish that the tenant is out of possession and the sub-tenant is in complete possession and occupation of the premises. In the case before hand, first respondent/landlord has not proved the sublease alleged by him by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent. Exs.P6 to P8 documents would not prove the sub-lease. In fact, Exs.P6 and P7 are created documents for the purpo