Judgment

SARKAR, J. :

In my opinion this appeal should succeed.

2. The respondent landlords demised certain premises to Maneklal Mafatlal for a term of five years from March 5, 1950. The tenant continued in possession after the expiry of the term under the protection from eviction given by the Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, which came into force on February 2, 1948. On April 27, 1956, the landlords filed a suit against him for eviction for non-payment of rent and obtained a decree on June 22, 1960. While this suit was pending the tenant sub-let a part of the demised premises to the appellant. In execution of the decree the landlords got possession of a small part of the premises which was in the actual occupation of the tenant. As to the rest, the sub-tenants in possession including the appellant resisted eviction. The appellant in fact filed a suit against the landlords claiming that under S. 14 of the Act it had upon the determination of the interest of the tenant in the premises by the decree against him become their direct tenant of the portion sub-let to it and asking for a permanent injunction restraining the landlords from evicting it. In that suit the appellant made an application for an interim injunction but the application was rejected by the trial Court and on appeal therefrom by the appellant Court. The appellant then moved the High Court of Gujarat in revision and the High Court confirmed the orders of the Courts below holding that after the expiry of the term, the tenant had no power of sub-letting and the appellant, therefore, was not a sub-tenant and it was not entitled to any injunction. The correctness of this judgment of the High Court is challenged in this appeal.

3. The protection under which the tenant in this case stayed on after the expiry of his lease was given by sub-s. (1) of S. 12 of the Act which provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays rent and observes and performs the conditions of the tenancy as provided in the section. The tenant contemplated in sub-s. (1) of S.12 plainly a tenant whose lease had come to an end. The Act at various places uses the word, "tenant" as including such a person and also defines the word "tenant" in S. 5(11)(b) as including "any person remaining, after the determination of the lease, in possession, with or without the assent of the landlord, of the premises leased to such person..................". Such a person has been called a statutory tenant and I shall also use that description for economy of expression.

4. The landlords contend that though by virtue of S. 12(1) of the Act the tenant could not be evicted after the expiry of his lease, yet he had then lost all interest in the demised premises and could not, therefore, sub-let the same. Now it may be that under the general law of landlord and tenant, a tenant has no right to sub-let after the expiry of the lease but we have here a statute which has altered that law in many ways. The power of tenant to sub-let cannot therefore be decided by reference to the general law of landlord and tenant but the Act must be examined to see how it effects that power. In my opinion such a power in a statutory tenant is contemplated by the Act and in particular by cl. (e) of subs. (1) of S. 13. That section lays down the circumstances in which a landlord notwithstanding the bar in S. 12(1), can get a decree in ejectment against the tenant and the part of it to which I wish to refer is in these terms:

S. 13. (1) "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of section 15, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied-

* * * * * * *

(e) that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this Act, unlawfully sub-let the whole or part of the permises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein."

5. This clause plainly contemplates a