Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the landlord. His application for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenants was allowed both by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. But on revision, the learned District Judge, on a re-appreciation of the evidence reversed the decisions of the courts below. 2. The 1st respondent is the tenant of the landlord-revision petitioner. Respondents 2 to S are persons to whom interest in the building by sub-lease is alleged to have been transferred by the 1st respondent. In respect of the 2nd respondent all the authorities held that there was no sub-lease;. It was is respect of respondents 3 to 5 that the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority held that there was sub-lease. 3. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority relied on Exts. A3 to A5 to conclude that a workshop called S. H. Motor Workshop was being run by respondents 3 and 4 in the building. It is admitted by the 1st respondent, the original tenant, that respondents 3 and 4 were operating a workshop, but as his employees. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found that respondents 3 and 4 were not employees of the 1st respondent. They also held that the municipal records including the licences in respect of the workshop proved beyond doubt that the workshop was operated by respondents 3 and 4 in their personal capacity and not as employees or agents of any one else. In regard to the 5th respondent, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority held that a sub-lease of the building was granted to him by the 1st respondent. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of a kychit (Ext. A8) and the evidence of the 5th respondent. 4. The learned District Judge, setting aside the orders of the authorities below him in regard to respondents 3 and 4, held that, although Exts. A3 to A5 records referred to a workshop called S. H. Motor Workshop and to the licences thereof, certain mistakes in the door numbers threw doubts on the correctness of the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. As regards the 5th respondent, the learned District Judge held that the kychit produced by him showed tampering with the municipal number of the building and it was therefore intrinsically unreliable. 5. As regards the 5th respondent, the learned District Judge held that the kychit produced by him showed tampering with the municipal number of the building and it was therefore intrinsically unreliable. 5. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of the Revising Authority under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is not unlimited; he does not sit in appeal; his jurisdiction to interfere with finding of fact is limited to cases where the impugned order is perverse or arbitrary in the sense that, on the basis of the evidence on record, no reasonable tribunal would have come to such a decision; or, the decision was rendered on the basis of irrelevant consideration; or, that it was unsupported by any evidence whatever: Doraswami Chettiar v. Handammaden Kunhiraman, 1969 KLJ. 227. In my view, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and in reversing the finding of facts by the authorities below him. 6. The Tribunals of facts, viz., the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, having on a proper consideration of the evidence come to the conclusion that a sub-lease was created in favour of respondents 3 to 5, the landlord became entitled to recovery of possession under sub-section 4 (i) of S.11. If the building or a portion thereof is subleased without the consent of the landlord, the sub-section is attracted and the tenant is bound to put the landlord in possession of the whole of the building leased to him. 7. The relevant portion of sub-sec. (4) (i) of Section H reads as follows: "(4) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building: (i) if the tenant after the commencement of this Act, without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so; x" The definition of 'building' in S.2 (1) includes a part of a building which is let or to be let. The expression 'building' under sub-s. (4) of S. H has therefore to be understood as the premises let, whether it is the whole or a part of a building. The expression 'building' under sub-s. (4) of S. H has therefore to be understood as the premises let, whether it is the whole or a part of a building. If such premises are sub-leased or the right under the lease is transferred, sub-s. [4] [i] is attracted. And whenever that provision is attracted that is, whenever the tenant transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets either the entire 'building' (which expression has to be understood in terms of S.2 (1)) or a portion of such'building', be becomes liable to be evicted from the whole of the premises let. If the vice of sub-lease has affected any portion of the 'building' the landlord gets the right to evict the tenant from the whole 'building' let to him. 8. In the present case, although it was found that no sub-lease was granted to the 2nd respondent, insofar as respondents 3 to 5 were concerned, sublease was established. In the circumstances the landlord is entitled to be put is possession of the whole of the premises let out to the tenant. 9. In view of my observation that the learned District Judge exceeded his authority in re-appreciating or re-evaluating the evidence on record and coming to a conclusion different from that which was come to by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, I set aside the impugned order of the Revising Authority, and restore the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court. 10. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.