Judgment

RAY, C. J. - This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 15 February, 1974 of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant filed a Revision Petition in the High Court against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge dismissing his appeal against the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises.

3. The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for possession of the premises on the ground that the appellant had sublet a portion of the premises.

4. Section 13(1) (e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 which is the relevant section for the purpose of this appeal runs as follows :

"13(1)(e) That the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this Act, unlawfully sublet, or after the date of commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, !973, unlawfully given on licence, the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein."

5. The appellant took on lease on 1 January, 1960 the premises, namely, first floor consisting of four rooms at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month.

6. The respondent alleged that the appellant sublet a portion thereof, namely, two rooms, in the month of August, 1965. The respondent on 1 April, 1967 gave a notice to the appellant terminating the tenancy.

7. The appellant denied that there was any unlawful subletting of two rooms to respondent No.5 Jitendra Shankerji Desai. The appellant further alleged that the respondent No. 5 Desai vacated the suit premises on 14 April, 1967.

8. At the trial the issues were whether the appellant unlawfully sublet two rooms to respondent Desai. The Trial Court held that the appellant sublet the suit premises to respondent No. 5. The Trial Court gave the plaintiff-respondent a decree for possession of the suit premises.

9. The appellant preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

10. The appellant, thereafter, filed a revision petition in the High Court. In the High Court the contentions were these. The expression "the tenant has sublet" in Section 13(1) (e) of the above mentioned Act means that the subletting must continue at the date of the suit for passing the decree. The notice was given on 1 April, 1967. The respondent No. 5 vacated the premises in suit on 14 April, 1967. When the suit was filed the subtenant was not in occupation of the premises. Therefore the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to a decree.

11. The High Court relied on a Bench Decision of that High Court in Maganlal Narandas Thakkar v. Arjan Bhanji Kanbi (1969) 10 Guj LR 837 where it was held that the words "has sublet" in Section 13 (1)(e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act mean that a subletting has taken place and as a result of that subletting the impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession has heen removed. The provisions contained in Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act are similar to the provisions contained in the Bombay Act, 1947. The High Court also held that the words has sublet do not include any element of the sub-tenancy being in existence at the date when the suit is filed.

12. The appellant relied on a decision of this Court in Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji, (1969) 3 SCR 989 in support of the proposition that the words "has sublet" mean that the subletting is to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court in Goppulal s case (supra) considered Section 13 (1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Section 13 (1)(e) of the Rajasthan Act provides that no decree evicting the tenant shall be passed unless the Court is satisfied "(e) that the tenant has assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises, without the permission of the landlord."

13. The High Court in Goppulal s case, (AIR 1969 SC 1291) (supra) held that two shops were sublet after Octobe