RAMANKUTTY Vs. KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision; and the controversy lies within a narrow compass.

(2.) An order of eviction has been passed against the revision petitioner tenant on the ground of subletting of the premises by the tenant to the 2nd respondent in the rent control petition. The sublease alleged by the landlord has been concurrently found by the authorities below, and as far as I could see there has not been any wrong appreciation of evidence in coming to that conclusion. On going through the evidence in the case I am also satisfied that there was subletting as alleged by the landlord for the purpose of S.11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965.

(3.) The only contention raised by the revision petitioner tenant is that there is no compliance with the proviso to S.11(4)(i) of the Act. I may read the proviso: