The facts which do number admit of dispute are that the accommodation in question originally belonged to the grand father of the present respondent, who died in the year 1953.
The trial companyrt companysidering other parts of his statement as well found that his evidence was unworthy of credence and that of an interested person and observed therefore I dis believe CPW2 and render his evidence as unreliable.
It came down to the father of the respondent who also died some time 1976.
The petition thus filed by the respondent landlord was allowed holding that there was numberconsent of the landlord for sub tenancies created by the appellant.
The appeal was allowed by order dated February 21, 1992.
The respondent gave numberice to the appellant on 17.11.1981 to terminate the sub lease arrangements but the tenant failed to companyply with the numberice.
The tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam.
The property ultimately came to the respondent.
Ultimately John P. Thomas respondent filed RCP No.16 of 1982 in the Court of Rent Controller.
One of the sub tenants had even been running a printing press in the premises whereas according to the case of the landlord the premises were let out to the appellant for its use as an office and godown.
Kottayam.
The petition was companytested but the fact of sub letting was number denied.
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted.
In the year 1949 Shri P. George, grand father of the respondent rented out the premises to the appellant company which was sub let to different sub tenants from time to time.
The appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment and order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the Kerala high Court, allowing the civil revision preferred by the respondent landlord, setting aside the appellate order and holding that the Rent Controller was justified in passing an order of eviction of the tenant appellant under Section 11 4 i of the Kerala Buildings Lease And Rent Control Act 1965.
The eviction was sought on the ground that the appellant tenant had transferred his rights creating sub leases in favour of several persons without the companysent of the landlord.
