Judgment

PATHAK, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit for a declaration and injunction and raises questions concerning the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

2. Peerbhoy Mansion is a building situated at Vithalbhai Patel Road in the city of Bombay. It was let to a partnership firm, Gold Field Leather Works. Gold Field sublet a portion of a shop on the ground floor to Manekchand Bhikabhai. The sub-tenant Manekchand sublet it further to Sardar Tota Singh in 1952.

3. Gold Field filed a suit in 1962 against Manekchand for possession of the premises on the ground of unlawful subletting and carrying out unauthorised structural alterations. Manekehand resisted the suit and filed a written statement. During the pendency of the suit Tota Singh applied to the Court for being added as a defendant, but the application was opposed by Gold Field and was rejected. Gold Fields suit was ultimately decreed for possession in accordance with a compromise between the parties.

4. Tota Singh then filed Suit No. 2454 of 1966 for a declaration that he was a lawful tenant in possession of the premises and for an injunction restraining Gold Field from executing the decree which that firm had obtained against Manekchand. It was pleaded that he was in occupation and exclusive possession as a lawful sub-tenant for more than fifteen years to the knowledge of Gold Field, that the decree in Gold Fields suit was a collusive decree, that as the decree had been passed against Manekchand he. Tota Singh, had become a direct tenant of Gold Field under S. 14 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the "Bombay Rent Act") and that therefore he was entitled to the declaration and injunction sought in the suit.

5. Gold Field filed a written statement in the suit and pleaded that they were tenants of the entire building and had sublet the premises to Manekchand, that Manekchand as sub-tenant could not sublet the premises further to Tota Singh, and therefore Tota Singhs sub-tenancy was invalid.

6. The Court of Small Causes tried the suit and decreed it on April 17, 1973. Gold Field appealed. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes dismissed the appeal on April 30, 1975. The Appellate Bench affirmed the trial Judges finding that the premises had been sublet by Manekchand to Tota Singh in 1952, and that on May 21, 1959, when the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1959 was promulgated and sub-s. (2) of S. 15 was introduced into the Bombay Rent Act, Manekchand was not in possession. In the attempt to prove that he was a lawful subtenant, Tota Singh urged before the Appellate Bench that Gold Field had permitted Manekchand to sublet the premises to him, but this contention was not entertained by the Appellate Bench as there was neither any plea nor any evidence to support it. The Appellate Bench also rejected the submissions of Tota Singh that he had paid rent directly to Gold Field and therefore had been accepted as a tenant by them. It found that no rent had been paid by Tota Singh to Gold Field after Manekchands statutory tenancy, which followed the termination of his contractual tenancy by service of notice, had itself been terminated by the decree for possession in Gold Fields suit. One road seemed still open to Tota Singh to establish the validity of his tenancy. Before the Appellate Bench a concession had been made by counsel for Gold Field. It was conceded on behalf of Gold Field that Manekchand was their lawful subtenant. On that Tota Singh urged that if Manekchand, although a sub-tenant, was regarded as a "tenant" by reason of sub-s. (11) of S. 5 of the Bombay Rent Act, then the benefit of sub-s. (2) of S. 15 should be extended to him. He was in possession on May 21, 1959 as the sub-tenant of lawful tenant and, therefore, the submission proceeded, his sub-tenancy would be deemed to be valid. T