Judgment : The civil revision petition arises under the Rent Control Act. The eviction of the respondents was sought on the ground of unauthorised subletting. According to the case in the petition of the landlord, the premises belonging to him had been leased out to respondents 1 and 2 on a monthly rent of Rs.525, tenancy months computed as per English calendar about ten years prior to the filing of the eviction petition; respondents 1 and 2 had been carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Ganga Finance, Karur it was learnt by the landlord that respondents 1 and 2 sub-leased portions of the premises to respondents 3 to 5 sometime in the past; the front portion of the ground floor had been sub-leased to the third respondent, the rear portion to the fourth respondent and the first floor to the fifth respondent, the sub-lease had been made without the knowledge of the landlord and without his written consent. Since he came to know about the sub-lease arrangements, he want and met respondents 1 and 2 and questioned their conduct; they were not willing to vacate the premises even though respondents 3 to 5 had been in occupation of portions of the premises without any direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and respondents 3 to 5, they became hostile and the fourth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.600 of 1984 before the District Munsif, Karur, alleging falsely that the landlord interferred with his business highhandedly and illegally and sought injunction; and the respondents were liable to be evicted for unauthorised subletting. 2. The first respondent filed a counter denying subletting. He further stated that himself and the second respondent had been running M/s.Ganga Finance, Karur, in the property for some years, but closed the business on some personal grounds and thereafter they surrendered possession to the landlord. His further case in the counter is that respondents 3 to 5 were direct tenants under the landlord and there was no sublease. It is further stated that respondents 1 and 2 had paid an advance of Rs.1,000 to the landlord when they took possession of the property on lease and that the said amount was still with the landlord and he had not repaid the same in spite of repeated demands. It is further stated that respondents 1 and 2 had paid an advance of Rs.1,000 to the landlord when they took possession of the property on lease and that the said amount was still with the landlord and he had not repaid the same in spite of repeated demands. Aggrieved by the demands made by the first respondent, the present eviction petition had been filed with false allegations. 3. The second respondent reiterated the contents of the counter of the first respondent and denied subletting. 4. The third respondent filed a counter stating that it had taken the front portion of the ground floor of petition mentioned premises from the landlord on an oral lease in the month of July, 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs.50; there was no subletting and the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the landlord and the third respondent. .5. The fourth respondent filed a counter denying subletting and alleging that in or about 1980 it took the rear portion for running yarn business directly from the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.200 that pursuant to the terms of tenancy it was also put in possession of the same portion, that there was direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and itself, that the suit had to be filed because the landlord tried to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the portion in the occupation of the fourth respondent. 6. The fifth respondent also raised similar contentions, besides stating that it became a tenant under the landlord direct in the month of October, 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.175 that there was no subletting and that the petition was liable to be dismissed. 7. The landlord filed two documents Exs.P-1 and P-2 and examined himself as P.W.1. On the side of the respondents Exs.R-1 to R-105 were marked. The first respondent was examined as R.W.1, the partner of the third respondent was examined as R.W.2 the Manager of the fifth respondent as R.W.3 and one Krishnakumar, partner of the fourth respondent, was examined as R.W.4. On the side of the respondents Exs.R-1 to R-105 were marked. The first respondent was examined as R.W.1, the partner of the third respondent was examined as R.W.2 the Manager of the fifth respondent as R.W.3 and one Krishnakumar, partner of the fourth respondent, was examined as R.W.4. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the oral and the documentary evidence, held that the landlord had proved that respondents 1 and 2 had sublet the premises without the written consent of the landlord, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and that the respondents were liable to be evicted. Respondents 3 to 5 filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.1 of 1987 before the Subordinate Judge, Karur who by his order dated 24. 1990 reversed the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the subletting and held that respondents 3 to 5 were direct tenants under the landlord and that the petition for eviction was liable to be dismissed. As against the decision of the Appellate Authority, the landlord filed the civil revision petition. Pending revision the landlord died and his son has come on record as the second revision petitioner. .8. Mr.Sundar Mohan,learned counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted that the Appellate Authority did not apply his mind and decide the crucial issue as to whether respondents 3 to 5 were sub-tenants under respondents 1 and 2. According to the learned counsel, the finding reached by the Appellate Authority that respondents 3 to 5 became direct tenants under the landlord is based on no evidence and further it erred in holding that the landlord had not proved that respondents 1 and 2 had not surrendered possession as pleaded by them and insisting upon the landlord proving the negative. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the Appellate Authority was swayed by the enormous documents filed by the respondents and according to the counsel, these documents would only show that they were carrying on business in the petition premises, but would not prove that they were direct tenants under the landlord. The learned counsel also took exception to the reasoning of the Appellate Authority that there had been delay in filing the petition that there was no notice to the respondents to quit and that there was no proper proof of subletting. 9. The learned counsel also took exception to the reasoning of the Appellate Authority that there had been delay in filing the petition that there was no notice to the respondents to quit and that there was no proper proof of subletting. 9. Per contra, Mr.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, submitted that the materials on record would amply demonstrate that respondents 3 to 5 were direct tenants under the landlord, that the landlord had received rent direct from them and that the landlord had not established by letting in adequate acceptable evidence in support of his case and subletting by respondents 1 and 2 to respondents 3 to 5. Mr.Peppin Fernando also relied on a number of decisions in support of his submissions. 10. Before proceeding further to discuss the case, I wish to place on record the callous manner in which the Appellate Authority had dealt with the case. It is very disturbing to note that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind to what had been typed out in the order. The last para of the order of the Appellate Authority appears to be an extract from some journal and except for the first sentence which alone had something to do with the case on hand, the rest of the portion is totally unrelated and incongruous to the core. It passes ones comprehension as to what the Gift Act of 1958 (with rules) commentary by Mr.M.L.Chandak has anything to do with the case. The Appellate Authority has extracted a review of the said book in his order and it is totally unconnected with the case on hand, words fail me. It is time the Appellate Authority realised his duty to the litigant public and bestowed some attention to what he is called upon to decide. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is contended on behalf of the landlord that there was unauthorised subletting by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5. According to the landlord, Just prior to the filing of the eviction petition, he came to know about this subletting. The specific stand on the side of respondents 1 and 2 is that they surrendered possession in 1976. It is significant to note that they had not taken return of the advance of Rs.1,000 paid by them. According to the landlord, Just prior to the filing of the eviction petition, he came to know about this subletting. The specific stand on the side of respondents 1 and 2 is that they surrendered possession in 1976. It is significant to note that they had not taken return of the advance of Rs.1,000 paid by them. This coupled with the fact that respondents 3 to 5 claimed that they did not pay any advance to the landlord makes their stand of direct tenancy dubious. It is also seen that there is absolutely no evidence to show that they paid the rent direct to the landlord. One of the respondents had referred to the payment of rent saying that the rent had been paid to Kuppuswamy. But the landlord had denied the suggestion that Kuppuswamy was his employee. The thrust of Mr.Peppin Fernandos argument is that assuming that there was subletting, it was inconceivable that for several years the landlord had kept quiet without taking steps and this would show that there was indeed no subletting and that respondents 3 to 5 were direct tenants under the landlord. No doubt, it is for the landlord to prove affirmatively that there was subletting unauthorisedly by the tenants in favour of the sub tenants. But, at the same time it cannot be overlooked that respondents 1 and 2 plead a case of surrender in 1976 which has to be conclusively established as well as the plea of respondents 3 to 5 that they were direct tenants under the landlord and that they had been paying rent direct to the landlord. The mere presence of respondents 3 to 5 in the property for several years would not by itself show that they were direct tenants under the landlord. The Appellate Authority has over-simplified the whole question by observing that it is not uncommon for business people to make some arrangement with regard to telephone connection and the same cannot be put against respondents 3 to 5. The Rent Controller has thoroughly discussed the case in paragraphs 13 to 15 of his order. He has adverted to the fact that in the accounts of respondents 3 to 5 the landlords name does not find a place anywhere. On the contrary, it is stated in the accounts that the rent was being paid to one Kumaraswamy. The Rent Controller has thoroughly discussed the case in paragraphs 13 to 15 of his order. He has adverted to the fact that in the accounts of respondents 3 to 5 the landlords name does not find a place anywhere. On the contrary, it is stated in the accounts that the rent was being paid to one Kumaraswamy. As to who that Kumaraswamy is there are differing versions. According to R.W.3, Kumaraswamy was their employee and he was asked to hand over the rent to the landlord. However, the name of Kumaraswamy did not fine a place in the list of employees of the third respondent. The Rent Controller has further observed that when there were other employees in the firm, it did not make sense that every month the amount was paid to Kumaraswamy. Whatever, it is, the name of the landlord does not find a place in the accounts of respondents 3 to 5. The quality of evidence on the side of respondents 3 to 5 is abysmal. 12. In Reethalammal v. K.Arumugham Pillai and others Reethalammal v. K.Arumugham Pillai and others Reethalammal v. K.Arumugham Pillai and others , 91 L.W. 231 Nainar Sundaram, J., (as the learned Judge then was) dealing with the question of subletting, after referring to a number of authorities on the subject, in paragraph 20 of the judgment observed as follows: “Subletting is made a ground for seeking eviction by the landlord. Consent by landlord for such subletting would provide a cover for the tenant. It may be express or implied provided it is in writing. Subletting done during the tenure of a lease under a previous landlord and without his written consent can be availed of by a subsequent purchase from the previous landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. Though in some decisions acquiescence by the landlord was countenanced as a defence available to the tenant, other decisions have discountenanced it, and they have held that there is no question of acquiescence of estoppel against the landlord and that would practically be estoppel against the statute. In my view, the second line of decisions is in consonance with the language used in the provisions of the Act. To repeat the dictum of Ramakrishnan, J. in Abdul Khader v. G.H.Rao Abdul Khader v. G.H.Rao Abdul Khader v. G.H.Rao , (1964)2 MLJ. In my view, the second line of decisions is in consonance with the language used in the provisions of the Act. To repeat the dictum of Ramakrishnan, J. in Abdul Khader v. G.H.Rao Abdul Khader v. G.H.Rao Abdul Khader v. G.H.Rao , (1964)2 MLJ. 288 ” any kind of acquiescence by the landlord or estoppel by his conduct cannot be a substitute for the plain requirements of the statute about a written consent.“ 13. This decision is a complete answer to the criticism by the Appellate Authority and also by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 that the landlord had come to court belatedly. In my view, unless respondents 3 to 5 satisfactorily establish that they had been paying rent direct to the landlord, the case of the landlord that they are subtenants will stand proved. We have already noticed that respondents 1 and 2 have not taken back the advance of Rs.1000 stated to have been paid to the landlord and that there is absolutely no evidence to show that they paid the rent direct to the landlord when they became tenants under the landlord directly on various dates. It is well established that a case of sub-lease is always a matter for inference from the evidence. It is not possible for the landlord to prove that there is a transaction of payment between the tenant and the alleged sub tenant. It is for the court to infer a case of sub-tenancy. It has been so held in M/s.Vijaya Traders by Executive Partner V.Saradha v. C.K.Sampath and another M/s.Vijaya Traders by Executive Partner V.Saradha v. C.K.Sampath and another M/s.Vijaya Traders by Executive Partner V.Saradha v. C.K.Sampath and another , (1991)2 MLJ. 174 . 14. In V.D.Murugesan v. V.Raj Mohammed V.D.Murugesan v. V.Raj Mohammed V.D.Murugesan v. V.Raj Mohammed , (1995)1 MLJ. 84 Govardhan, J., has dealt with the question of subletting. ”It is beyond controversy that subletting means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of a third party and the said right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent and parting of legal possession with the right to include and also a right to exclude other and mere occupation is not sufficient to infer either tenancy or parting with possession. If a tenant had permitted a third party to use the premises along with him while retaining the legal possession, it will not amount to subletting.“ 15. There is no quarrel over this proposition of law. But in the instant case, it is not the stand of respondents 1 and 2 that they had retained legal possession of the property. On the contrary their specific case is that they surrendered possession even in 1976. .16. In Sengani Ammal v. Authysekaran , (1996)1 MLJ. 310 S.S.Subramani, J., has dealt with the question of subletting. .”The sub-lease is a contract entered into between the lessee and the sub-lessee and when it is prohibited, naturally the same will be a secret arrangement between them. The court will have to consider whether the person who is making use of the building is a sub-lessee or not. For that purpose, we have to consider whether the alleged sublessee has exclusive possession of the building and whether he is in occupation for any monetary consideration. As stated earlier, since the relationship between the tenant and sub-lessee can only be a secret affair, the landlord can only a that a third person is in occupation of the building, contravening the rental arrangement. If exclusive possession is proved or can be inferred from circumstances, law says that the occupation by the stranger can be on monetary consideration.“ 17. To repeat, the exclusive possession of respondents 3 to 5 is admitted in the instant case. It is case of surrender by respondents 1 and 2 and acceptance of rent by the landlord direct from respondents 3 to 5 and in my view, the respondents have failed miserably to prove their case. .18. In Ram Saran v. Pyare Lal and another Ram Saran v. Pyare Lal and another Ram Saran v. Pyare Lal and another , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2361 the tenant surrendered his tenancy right in favour of a registered society without the consent of the landlord. It was also not the case that the said registered society was given possession of tenanted premises as a licensee. It was held by the Supreme Court that, .” Mere acceptance of rent tendered by tenant in the name of registered society cannot constitute legal and valid sub-tenancy in favour of registered society and that the landlord is not estopped from seeking eviction on ground of unauthorised subletting.“ .19. It was held by the Supreme Court that, .” Mere acceptance of rent tendered by tenant in the name of registered society cannot constitute legal and valid sub-tenancy in favour of registered society and that the landlord is not estopped from seeking eviction on ground of unauthorised subletting.“ .19. I have dealt with the question of subletting in V.T. Asokan and another v. Bowjiya Begam V.T. Asokan and another v. Bowjiya Begam V.T. Asokan and another v. Bowjiya Begam , (1998)3 L.W. 661 . .”In case of arrangers secret pact regarding subtenancy is very difficult to unravel.“ 20. In Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata , (1996)1 S.C.C. 25 and in Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another , (1999)7 S.C.C. 263 it has been held by the Supreme Court that,” the conclusion on the question of subletting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from the findings on materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for consideration.“ 21. In view of the discussion above, the conclusion is inescapable that respondents 1 and 2 had unauthorisedly sublet the premises to respondents 3 to 5 and all the respondents have made themselves liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting. The civil revision petition will stand allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller restored. The parties will bear their respective costs. 22. Having regard to the fact that the respondents are doing business for several years, they are given six months time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property subject to their filing an affidavit of undertaking with the usual default clause within a period of two weeks from today.