JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :— The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises in dispute under S. 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, No. II of 1965, on the ground that the appellant had sublet the premises without the consent of the landlord. The petition had a chequered career but finally the Rent Controller ordered eviction by his order dated July 31, 1974. The order of the Rent Controller was confirmed, successively by the Subordinate Judge, the District Judge and the High Court. The tenant has now preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

2. Shri Govindan Nair, learned counsel, for the appellant submitted that under S. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it was a term of every lease that the lessee might sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property and, therefore, unless the lease expressly prohibited the lessee from subletting the whole or part of the premises, the landlord could not have recourse to S. 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. In order to appreciate the submission of Shri Govindan Nair, we may set out the relevant statutory provisions. S. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is as follows :

"108. In the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary, the lessor and the lessee of the immovable property, as against one another, respectively possess the rights and are subject to the liabilities mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property leased :

(A) Rights and liabilities of the lessor

(a) to (c)xx xx xx

(B) Rights and liabilities of the lessee

(d) to (i)xx xx xx

(j) the lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property, and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it. The lessee shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities attaching to the lease;

xx xx xx

4. S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act No. II of 1965, to the extent that it is relevant is as follows:

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

Provided that... ... ... ...

Provided further that ... ... ...

(2) and (3) xx xx xx

(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 sublets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so."

5. The submission of Shri Govindan Nair was that if the lease did not expressly prohibit subletting, the provision in S. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act which enabled a lessee to sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property had necessarily to be read into every lease as one of its terms, and so read, it followed that the lease conferred on the tenant the right to sublet "the entire building or any portion there of" so as to disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Act. We are unable to agree with this submission.

6. Read plainly and without gloss, Section 11 (4) (i), simply and clearly, means that a tenant may be evicted on the ground of subletting unless such sub-letting is permitted by a term of the lease itself or by subsequent consent of the landlord. What is necessary is an application of the mind and the resulting consensus between the landlord and the tenant. If the clause "if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so" was not there in S. 11 (4) (i) the position would be unarguable that S. 108 (j) would offe