A tenant does not sublet premises merely by allowing an independent society to use them for a registered purpose if the original use aligns with the lease agreement.

O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The respondents-landlords filed R.C.P.No.16 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kodungallur, seeking eviction of the petitioners under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under both grounds. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Irinjalakuda as R.C.A.No.78 of 2015. The appeal was allowed in part. The order of eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) was set aside; however, order of eviction under (4)(i) of the Act was confirmed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have filed this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

2. The Revision was admitted to file on 28.05.2019.

Execution of the order of eviction was stayed as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2019 initially for a period of three months. The order of stay was extended from time to time.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The allegations with which the petition for eviction was filed are that the petitioners have defaulted payment of rent since 23.04.2003 and that the 1st petitioner sublet the petition schedule room to the 2nd petitioner in contravention of the lease arrangement. The petitioners resisted the petition for eviction by filing a counter. They denied the allegation of arrears of rent. It was contended that the 1st petitioner availed the room for conducting a library by the name Sree Narayana Library and Reading Room Sports and Arts Club. From the very beginning, the room has been used for the said purpose. There is therefore no subletting. The matter was duly intimated to the respondents. But the petition for eviction was filed with some oblique motive.

5. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the respondents. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the petitioners.

After considering the said evidence in detail, the Rent Control Court found that the petitioners defaulted payment of rent from 23.04.2003 onwards and that the 1st petitioner is the person, who took the room on rent, but he eventually had sublet the room to the 2nd petitioner. In the appeal, the said findings were assailed. The Appellate Authority as per the judgment dated 03.01.2019 held that the finding with respect to the arrears of rent was unsustainable in law, and therefore, the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act was set aside. The Appellate Authority further held that going by the terms of Ext.A1 rent agreement, the 1st petitioner had no right to sub let; whereas admittedly the room is being used by the 2nd petitioner, a registered society, which is a separate legal entity. Accordingly, the order of eviction on the ground of subletting was confirmed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that it is evident from the recitals in Ext.A1 that the petition schedule room was availed on rent by the 1st petitioner for being used as a library. Ever since it was taken on rent, the room has been used for accommodating the library run by the society named Sree Narayana Library and Reading Room Sports and Arts Club, to which the 1st petitioner is the President. The learned counsel would contend that the only thing that transpired in between is the registration of the society, but that has not brought about any change to the character of the tenant. It is pointed out that in the complaint filed by the respondent in Police, Ext.B1, it was admitted that the society was the tenant. The petition for eviction was filed only because the petitioners have a grievance that the library was not being functioned under the SNDP but by a different society. Accordingly, it is contended that the finding entered into by the courts below regarding sub-lease is totally incorrect.

7. There is prohibition of su