Judgment

MITTER, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dismissing a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order of the District Judge of Kottayam.

2. The facts are as follows. The appellant before us was a monthly tenant of four houses covered by a single tenancy at a rent of Rs. 250/- granted in 1953. The landlord filed a petition in the Rent Control Court of Kottayam for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his personal use and occupation, and secondly, that the tenant was guilty of sub-letting and as such not entitled to protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. The Controller held against the landlord on both the points. On appeal being preferred therefrom, the Subordinate Judge held that there was no sub-letting by the tenant but the landlord required the premises for his personal use and occupation. He however found that two of the buildings formed the subject-matter of separate and independent agreements between the parties and as such allowed eviction of the tenants from two only out of the four properties. Both parties went in revision to the District Judge, Kottayam under Section 20 of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. It is pertinent to note here that the Kerala Act of 1959 was repealed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the new Act came into force on 1st April, 1965. The petition for eviction was filed on August 31, 1965 after the coming into force of the new Act. The District Judge held that the landlord had not proved that he bona fide required the premises let for his personal use and occupation but disagreeing with the subordinate Judge he held that there had been in fact sub-letting and on the basis thereof ordered eviction of the tenants from all the four buildings. The tenant went up to the Kerala High Court by way of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court found that no grounds had been made out for interference with the order of the District Judge and as such dismissed the petition with costs.

3. The main point urged by Mr. Daphtary counsel for the appellant was that assuming that there was a sub-letting by the tenant a proceeding for eviction would only lie under the provisions for the Act of 1965. Omitting the provisos, section 11 (1) of the Act provided that:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

Sub-section (4) of the section however allowed the landlord to apply for eviction on the ground of sub-letting. The relevant portion of this sub-section runs 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 person thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so; or

(ii) to (v) ** ** **"

Counsel urged that whatever may have been the provision under the Act of 1959 the proceedings by the landlord having been started after the repeal of that Act and the commencement of the Act of 1965 the landlord could get possession of the premises only if he satisfied the tests laid down in sub-section (4) which did not make sub-letting before the commencement of the Act a ground for eviction. It is to be noted however that Section 34 of the Act of 1965 provided for savings and special provision in the following manner. Sub-section (1) thereof runs as follows:

"(1) Notwithstanding the expiry of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 (Kerala Act 16 of 1959) (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act), the provisions of Sections 4 and 23 of the Interpretation