Judgement

SARKAR, J. : The first respondent Tikam Das had let out a house in the city of Jabalpur to the second respondent Surya Kant Naidoo. Sometime in 1961 Tikam Das, herein referred to as the landlord, served a notice on Surya Kant, herein referred to as the tenant, terminating the tenancy and later in the same year filed a suit in a civil Court against the latter for ejectment. On June 23, 1962, by consent of parties, a decree for ejectment was passed in that suit in favour of the landlord against the tenant. The appellants who were occupying the premises as sub-tenants under the tenant had not been made parties to the suit.

2. On June 25 and 26, 1962, the appellants served notices on the landlord under S. 15 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 which had come into force on December 30, 1961, claiming that as the tenant had sub-let the premises to them before the Act had come into force with the consent of the landlord, they had become his direct tenants under S. 16 (2) of the Act and on June 28, 1962, the appellants filed a suit against both the landlord and the tenant in a civil Court claiming a declaration that they had in the circumstances become direct tenants of the premises under the landlord. On June 30, 1962, the landlord sent a reply to the notices sent by the appellants in which he denied that the sub-letting by the tenant had been with his consent or was lawful. It does not appear that the landlord had put his decree in execution for evicting the appellants.

3. One of the points canvassed in the High Court was whether in view of S. 45 (1)of the Act a civil Court was competent to entertain the appellants suit and it held that it was not and in that view of the matter dismissed the suit. The question is whether the High Court was right.

4. The Act established certain authorities called Rent Controlling Authorities and gave them power to decide various matters. Sub-section (1) of S. 45 states that no civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates... to any... matter which the Rent Controlling Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide." If, therefore, the suit related to a matter which a Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to decide, the civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain it.

5. Now the appellants suit was for a declaration that they had become direct tenants under the landlord by virtue of Section 16 (2) of the Act. That provision is in these terms:

Section 16.-(1) * * *

2. Where, before the commencement of this Act, the interest of a tenant in respect of any accommodation has been determined without determining the interest of any subtenant to whom the accommodation either in whole or in part had been lawfully sub-let, the sub-tenant shall , with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the landlord, if the tenancy had continued.

Clearly the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit of this provision unless the sub-letting to them was lawful. This is where their difficulty arises. Sub-section (2) of S. 15 deals with the case of a sub-letting before the Act and provides for a notice of the sub-letting being given to the landlord by the tenant and the sub-tenant. There is no dispute that the sub-letting to the appellants was before the Act and they had given the notice. The sub-letting, therefore, comes within sub-s. (2) of S. 15. Then we come to sub-s. (3) of S. 15 which provides, " Where in any case mentioned in sub-section (2), the landlord contests that the accommodation was not lawfully sub-let and an application is made to the Rent Controlling Authority in this behalf, either by the landlord or by the sub-tenant, within two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of sub-letting by the landlord or the issue of the notice by the tenant or the sub-tenant, as the