Sub-letting and alterations by a tenant without the landlord's consent are grounds for eviction under the Kerala Buildings Act, reinforcing the importance of the landlord's authority in tenancy agreements.

ORDER

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

These revision petitions arise from a proceedings for eviction of a tenant under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). The petitioners are the landlords in the proceedings. Though the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under (2)(b) and 11(4)(i), it declined the eviction sought under Section 11 (4)(ii). Both the tenant as well as the landlords challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the landlords and allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant in part setting aside the order of eviction under (4)(i). The landlords are aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority and hence, these revision petitions.

2. The landlords, who are husband and wife, own a three storeyed building consisting of several shop rooms. The tenant was occupying one of the shop rooms in the first floor of the building bearing number 11/70. One Aboobacker Siddique was occupying four other rooms in the building bearing numbers 11/58, 11/59, 11/69 and 11/76, of which rooms bearing numbers 11/58 and 11/59 are in the ground floor, the room bearing number 11/69 is in the first floor and the room bearing number 11/76 is in the second floor. The room bearing number 11/70 let out to the tenant is the room adjoining the room bearing number 11/69 let out to Aboobacker Siddique.

3. The case of the landlords is that the tenant has sub-let the room which was originally let out to him to Aboobacker Siddique and that Aboobacker Siddique is running a furniture business therein making use of the adjoining room let out to him in the same floor and also in the other three rooms in the ground and second floor, by removing the wall separating the rooms bearing numbers 11/69 and 11/70 and after constructing a staircase connecting all the five rooms. In the counter affidavit filed to the eviction petition, the tenant admitted that he has handed over possession of the room bearing number 11/70 to Aboobacker Siddique and that Aboobacker Siddique is running a furniture business in the said room making use of the adjoining room in the same floor and other rooms in the building. The tenant, however, asserted that he handed over possession of the tenanted premises to Aboobacker Siddique in exchange of the room bearing number 11/76 let out to Aboobacker Siddique with the permission of the power of attorney holder of the landlords and the wall separating the rooms bearing numbers 11/69 and 11/70 has been removed by one Abdul Rahman Haji, the brother of the power of attorney holder of the landlords, so as to enable Aboobacker Siddique to run furniture business in the said rooms, keeping the same as one hall.

4. The Rent Control Court took the view that in the light of the admission made by the tenant that he has handed over possession of the tenanted premises to Aboobacker Siddique, it was for the tenant to establish that the said arrangement was with the consent of the landlords and in the absence of any evidence in that regard, the landlords are entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11 (4)(i). As far as the claim of the landlords under (4)(ii), the Rent Control Court took the view that in the absence of any evidence as to who removed the wall separating the rooms bearing numbers 11/69 and 11/70 and constructed the staircase, the landlords are not entitled to an order under that provision. It is on that basis that the Rent Control Court allowed the eviction petition under (4)(i) alone.

5. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court as regards the claim under Section 11 (4)(i) mainly for two reasons. The first reason stated is that the landlords should have arrayed the alleged sub-tenant also as a party to the proceedings. The second reason stated is that in the light of the assertion made by the tenant in his evidence that he handed over possession o