- (1.) 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 sublet 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 Rs.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 subleased 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." 2. 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 licensee 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.;