The tenant is the revision petitioner. He filed the above revision against the judgment dated 28-8-1997 passed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A No. 60 of 1995.

2. The petitioner is the tenant of a shop room wherein he is conducting a tea shop. The first respondent is the landlord of the building. He filed R.C.P No. 19 of 1994 before the Rent Controller, Chavakkad for an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the building to the 2nd respondent without the knowledge or consent of the landlord. The allegations in the petition in brief are as follows:

“The petition schedule building except the room on the northern side of verandha was taken on lease by the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- from 1980. Thereafter on the request of the tenant the landlord made some additional amenities and the rent was increased to Rupees 275/-. Subsequently as demanded by the tenant the landlord constructed a room on the northern side of verandha and the rent was increased to Rs. 305/- from March 1994. Thereafter the rent is in arrears. The tenant contrary to the conditions in the rent deed has sub-leased the entire building to the 2nd respondent. A lawyer notice was issued on these grounds. But the tenant sent a reply raising untenable contentions. Therefore the petition for eviction was filed, etc.”

2A. The tenant resisted the petition. According to him, the premises was actually taken on rent from 1973 and no additional amenities were made by the landlord as alleged. The room on the northern portion of the verandha was constructed by the tenant himself. The tenant did not agree for enhancement of rent. The room on the verandha was constructed by him on a ground rent of Rs. 30/- under a separate rental arrangement. From April, 1992 he had permitted the second respondent to conduct the hotel and tea shop as a licencee under him. Legal possession of the room remained with the tenant and in fact this arrangement was made with the consent of the landlord.

3. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit contending that he is not aware of the conditions of entrustment of the petition schedule premises to the tenant by the landlord and that he (the second respondent) has taken the room on rent from the tenant/petitioner herein on 8-4-1992 as per an agreement in between them for conducting the hotel business and thereafter he has been conducting the business in the premises. He was paying daily rent at the rate of Rs. 17/- to the tenant as per the conditions in the agreement. The tenant has violated the conditions of the agreement.

4. The Rent Controller formulated necessary points for consideration. On the question of entrustment of the petition schedule premises, the Rent Controller held that there is no dispute that the premises scheduled in Ext. A1 was entrusted in between the parties and that the entrustment of the scheduled premises to the tenant as alleged by the landlord is proved. The said point was answered accordingly. As regards arrears of rent, on a consideration of the materials placed before him, the Rent Controller held that there is arrears of rent for the petition scheduled premises as claimed by the landlord and that even after Ext. A5 notice, the tenant has not paid any amount to the landlord towards arrears. Point No. 4 relates to the objectionable sub-lease of the petition scheduled premises to the 2nd respondent herein by the tenant. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant has given on sub-lease a portion of the petition schedule premises to the 2nd respondent herein, which is against the conditions of entrustment, under Ext. A1. Though the landlord issued notice to the tenant to surrender possession of the premises after evicting the sub-lessee, he had not done so, but has sent a reply to the notice raising false contentions. The tenant contended that he has not sub-let the premises as alleged by the landlord. It is the case of the tenant that he was conducting a hotel and tea-shop business in the premises and because of his financial difficulties, he has allowed the sub-lessee to conduct the hotel and tea-shop business by using the articles of business belonging to him. He would also say that the premises was given to the 2nd respondent herein to conduct the business for a consideration of Rs. 17/- per day and that he has not parted with the possession of the petition schedule premises to the second respondent as alleged by the petitioner, but only allowed the 2nd respondent to conduct the business in the premises with the consent of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no objectionable sub-lease of the premises as claimed by the landlord.

5. The landlord has examined himself as PW. 1. It is his evidence that as per the conditions in Ext. A1 rent deed, the tenant has no right to transfer possession of the petition schedule premises to anybody else. The second respondent was examined as RW. 1. He has given evidence to the effect that the tenant has given the premises to him on a daily rent of Rs. 17/- and that he has been in possession of the same from April, 1994 onwards. According to the 2nd respondent, the premises was entrusted to him by the tenant on the basis of an agreement entered into between them in the presence of witnesses. He has also produced the agreement in between them as Ext. B3. The tenant has, however, denied the execution of Ext. B3 as claimed by the 2nd respondent herein. However, the Rent Controller, relying on Exts. B4 and B5, which are the receipts for payment of profession tax and licence fee by the tenant for conducting business in the petition schedule premises, held that there is no objectionable sub-lease of the petition scheduled premises by the tenant to the 2nd respondent. The Rent Controller has also held that the 2nd respondent has failed to establish that he has been in possession of the premises on the basis of the daily rent as claimed by him and as the landlord was not able to prove that there was objectionable sub-lease of the premises, he is not entitled for an order of eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting. In view of the above findings, the Rent Controller held that the landlord is entitled to get eviction only on the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and not entitled to eviction under Sec. 11(4) of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed appeal, R.C.A No. 60 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. The Appellate Authority, considering the evidence, which consists of the testimony of PWs. 1 and 2, RWs. 1 to 4 and Exts. A1 to A10, B1 to B6 and also C1 and C2, came to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Appellate Authority has set aside the order of the Rent Controller declining to grant the order of eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act. It is useful to reproduce paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the order of the Appellate Authority in order to appreciate the approach made by him in arriving at the conclusion which he has reached in ordering eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act.

“13. The 2nd respondent has in his objections stated that he had taken a portion of the premises on rent from the 1st respondent. He has also stated that it is he who is conducting the hotel and tea shop in the premises. He has produced Ext. B3 document said to have been executed by him and the tenant. Of course, this was denied by the 1st respondent. No witnesses have been examined to prove the execution of Ext. B3 document. But that by itself is not decisive. It is to be noticed that the signature found on Ext. B3 compares well with the signature of the first respondent found in his objections and in his Vakkalath. Commissioner's report has categorically stated that it is the 2nd respondent who is conducting the hotel in the premises under the name and style “Sujatha Hotel”. The Commissioner has also noticed that in the northern room the tenant is still conducting business. Therefore Exts. B-5 and B-6 could well relate to the business carried on by the tenant in a portion of the premises. It is true that the 2nd respondent has admitted that he has no licence for running the tea shop. But it is not seen stated by him that he is running the tea shop and the hotel under the licence obtained by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has no case that the 2nd respondent is an employee under him. In fad it is even admitted by the 1st respondent that it is the 2nd respondent who is actually conducting the tea shop and the hotel business. There is nothing to show that the 1st respondent has anything to do with the business carried on by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has admitted that it is the 2nd respondent who is paying current charges for the electricity consumed for running the hotel. The evidence discloses that for the last 4 years it has been the 2nd respondent who has been running the hotel and tea shop business in the premises. There is absolutely no evidence in this case at all to show that the 1st respondent has any manner of possession over the premises in which the hotel and tea shop business is being conducted by the 2nd respondent or that the 1st respondent has anything to do with the hotel and tea shop business. It is admitted by the 1st respondent that he is receiving a sum of Rs. 17/- per day as rent from the 2nd respondent.

14. The landlord has scceeded in showing that prima facie the first respondent has parted with possession of the portion of the premises in favour of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has stated in his objections as well as at the time of evidence that he had taken the premises on rent from the 1st respondent and it is he who is conducting the hotel therein. There is nothing to show that the 1st respondent has any manner of interest in the business carried on by the 2nd respondent. There is nothing to show that he still retains possession of that portion of the premises. I am unable to agree with the finding of the Court below that the landlord has not succeeded in establishing the sublease.

15. When the evidence discloses that it is the 2nd respondent who is actually carrying on the hotel business and that he is paying consideration for his occupation to the 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent has not been able to show that he has any manner of right over the hotel business carried on by the 2nd respondent and that he is in actual possession of the premises. The 1st respondent is guilty of objectionable subletting. The landlord is entitled to get eviction under Section 11(4)(1) also.”

Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred the above revision petition.

7. We have heard counsel for the petitioner at length at the time of admission. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider the evidence in the case and also the opinion expressed by the trial Court regarding the evidence available in the case. He would further submit that the Appellate Authority ought to have held that the revision petitioner has proved that the second respondent is only a licensee and that the possession of the shop building continues with the revision petitioner. He would further contend that the Appellate Authority cannot compare the signature in the document and come to a conclusion that Ext. B3 has been executed by the revision petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the landlord and the tenant are colluding and trying to make out a case against the tenant. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority are based on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, unsustainable in law. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority has entered a finding based on surmises and conjectures and on the basis of non-existent materials and, therefore, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act can interfere with the said Judgment. In support of the said contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Subbiah Reddiar v. Chinnamma, ((1991) 2 Ker LT 461), Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla, AIR 1991 SC 744. The Supreme Court, while construing Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, has observed that it is clear and transparent that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court is much wider than the jurisdiction provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, is competent not only to see the irregular or illegal exercise of jurisdiction but also to see to the legality or propriety of the order in question. In that case, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the demised premises were not let out for residential purposes and the same were let out for the purpose of running the business of a printing press was interfered with by the Supreme Court since they were not at all correct and per se against the evidences on record, and that the High Court, in such circumstances, could, in exercise of its power under Section 15(5) of the said Act, reverse the findings on fact as the same were improper and also illegal.

8. Paripoornan, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Subbiah Reddiar's case (1991 (2) Ker LT 461) (supra), while disposing of a preliminary question mooted by counsel on both sides which pertained to the jurisdiction of the Court in exercising the power of revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, has observed as follows:

“Inrevision, this Court can call for and examine the records relating to any order passed by the Appellate Authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order. The finding entered by the Appellate Authority, that the landlords require the building bona fide for own occupation, is a finding of fact. Even so, the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 20 of the Act can be exercised if it is shown that the said finding of fact was arrived at due to an error of law or that the said finding was based on no evidence at all or was arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. S. 20 of the Act enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order under revision. It is a jurisdiction wider than S. 115, C.P.C That jurisdiction enables this Court in appropriate cases to examine the correctness of the findings or facts also. In an appropriate case, this Court can re-appraise the evidence, if the finding of the Appellate Authority is found to be infirm in law. The findings entered on conjectures and surmises and on the basis of non-existent materials and baseless assumptions can be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional powers under S. 20 of the Act. In cases where the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority can be characterised as “so wholly unreasonable or perverse that no Tribunal could arrive at such a conclusion on the evidence on record”, the revisional jurisdiction is attracted. There will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstances, and an order based on reasons of fact which do not exist must be held to be infected with an abuse of power. Even a finding of fact is open to challenge in certain specified circumstances. It is not as if under no circumstance a finding of fact entered by the Appellate Authority can be scrutinised or evaluated by the revisional Court exercising powers under S. 20 of the Act.”

9. In the light of the above two rulings, we have to see whether the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner/tenant that the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority are based on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, unsustainable in law. In this case, the execution of Ext. A1 is admitted. There is nothing in Ext. A1 to show that the tenant was already in possession of the premises. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the Appellate Authority, the contention of the tenant that he has not been inducted into possession on the basis of Ext. A1 cannot be accepted. It is the case of the tenant that the room on the northern side was put up by him and that he had taken the ground on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, per (sic) The tenant had examined two witnesses to show that they had done the work of the room for him. The landlord has produced Exts. A2 to A4 which are counterfoil of the rent receipts retained by him. A scrutiny of the counterfoils reveal that the tenant waspaying Rs. 200/- per month initially, Rs. 260/- thereafter, Rs. 275/- subsequently and then finally Rs. 305/-. In this context, the evidence of the tenant as RW. 2 needs to be noticed. He says that “after the construction of the room on the northern side, the rent was enhanced by Rs. 30/- per month.” The tenant's evidence discloses that after the construction of the room, the rent was enhanced by Rs. 30/- and thereafter he was paying Rs. 275/- + Rs. 30/-, i.e Rs. 305/-. per month. There is no proof to show that the tenant was paying separately for the northern room at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. He was paying a Consolidated rent of Rs. 305/- per month for the entire premises, which belies the case of the tenant that the room was put up by him and it is the subject-matter of a separate contract. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Exts. B4 to B6 would support the case of the tenant and that the Rent Controller was impressed by Exts. B4 to B6 documents which show that the tenant has paid profession tax and has paid fee for licence from the Panchay at and for licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The second respondent herein, as already noticed, has stated in his objection that he has taken a portion of the premises on rent from the tenant and that it is he who is conducting the hotel and tea shop in the premises. Ext. B3 produced by him was rejected by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, on a comparison of the signature with the signature in the Vakalath, found that the signature in Ext. B3 tallies with the signature of the tenant in his objection and his Vakalath. A Commissioner was appointed to make a local inspection of the premises. In his report the Commissioner has categorically stated that it is the second respondent herein who is conducting hotel in the petition scheduled premises under the name and style of “Sujatha Hotel”. The Commissioner has also noticed that in the northern room the tenant is still conducting business which, therefore, would relate to Exts. B5 and B6. It is not elicited from the second respondent or proved by any other means that the second respondent is running the tea shop and the hotel under the licence obtained by the tenant. The tenant has no case that the second respondent is an employee under him. In fact, the tenant has admitted that it is the second respondent who is paying current charges for running the hotel business. The evidence tendered discloses that for the past four years prior to the filing of this case the second respondent alone has been running the hotel and tea shop business in the premises in question. The tenant has miserably failed to prove that he is having any manner of possession over the premises in which the hotel and tea shop business is being conducted by the second respondent, or that the tenant has anything to do with the hotel and tea shop business. The second respondent has also deposed that he is paying Rs. 17/- per day as rent which is also admitted by the tenant.

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have carefully perused the pleadings and evidence tendered, both oral and documentary. Our considered view is that the landlord has succeeded in showing that the tenant has parted with possession of a portion of the premises in favour of the 2nd respondent herein and that the second respondent herein in his evidence has deposed that he has taken the premises on rent from the tenant and it is he who is conducting the hotel business therein. As the evidence discloses that it is the second respondent who is actually carrying on the business in the premises, paying rent at the rate of Rs. 17/- per day to the tenant, the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(1) of the Act.

11. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in Jayakrishnan v. Vrindha, (1997) 2 Ker LT 943, will be of no assistance to him. That was a case of entrustment of the premises to another to carry on tailoring business on behalf of the tenant who had left India and, therefore, the Court held that the mere entrustment of possession cannot be said to be a sublease. Likewise, the decision reported in Gopalan v. Chandramathi, (1989) 2 Ker LT SN Case No. 64, will be of no use to the tenant. The learned single Judge (Sukumaran, J.) held that it is possible for person to be a lessee of a building and another to be a licensee of the trade therein, and when possession of a party is clearly explained by evidence, oral and documentary, the mere issue of licence by the Panchayat in another's name will not alter the position. The two decisions referred to above, in our opinion, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. They are distinguishable on facts and on law. The evidence let in discloses that the tenant has not entrusted possession of a portion of the premises to the second respondent to carry on the hotel and tea shop business on his behalf. Parting of possession by the tenant in favour of the second respondent herein has been very clearly brought out in the pleadings and also in the evidence let in this case. The tenant has not proved that he has any manner of possession over the premises in which the hotel and tea shop business is being conducted by the second respondent and that the second respondent is conducting the business on behalf of the tenant. As already seen, the second respondent is paying a sum of Rs. 17/- per day as rent to the tenant. They have also entered into an agreement under Ext. B3. Electricity charges are being paid by the second respondent. Therefore we are of the view that the findings entered by the Appellate Authority is not based on conjectures and surmises and on the basis of non-existent materials and baseless assumptions as alleged by counsel for the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has considered the entire materials placed before him and examined the records and on satisfying himself about the genuineness of the case of the landlord, the Appellate Authority has rendered a finding, which, in our opinion, is unassailable. There is absolutely no scope for interference, in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 20 of the Act. The Appellate Authority has only appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion on the basis of existent materials.

12. Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act, the landlord is entitled to apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if the tenant sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. In this case, the tenant has parted with the possession of a portion of the premises for a daily rent of Rs. 17/- in favour of the second respondent who is conducting the hotel and tea shop business in the said premises under a written arrangement, Ext. B3. The object of the provisions in Section 11(4) of the Act is that the tenant whose tenancy was well secured and protected by the rights conferred by the Act should alone be entitled to such security and protection and that the tenant should not be allowed to profit by the protection given to him by subletting the premises and extending the protection to others beside himself. In this case, the subletting is only, a portion of the building. Even if the subletting is only of a portion of the building, the landlord gets the right to evict the tenant from the whole building let to him.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the revision and, therefore, we dismiss the same.

Revision dismissed.