ORDER

A.M.Babu, J.

1.Eviction of the tenants was sought under Sec.11(2)(b) and 4(i)

of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short the Act). The ground under Sec.11(2)(b) was not pressed before the trial court. The ground under Sec.11(4)(i) was contested by the tenants as well as the alleged sub-tenant and they lost. They went in appeal, but again lost. They are in revision before this court. Parties are referred to in this order as they are shown in the rent control petition.

2.The case of the petitioners is summarized below : The original letting of the petition schedule building was in favour of P.V.Surendran. He was the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4. The 5th respondent is the husband of the 4th respondent. The lease prohibited sub-lease. The original tenant, P.V.Surendran, was not in possession of the tenanted premises during his life time. He had given it to the 5th respondent on an enhanced rent. After the death of Surendran, respondents 1 to 4 continued the aforesaid illegal arrangement. The 5th respondent is and has been in possession of the tenanted room. He is a practising lawyer. He is using the room as his office. Despite r