Judgment

B.C. RAY, J.:- This appeal by way of certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Article 133 of the Constitution of India is against the judgment and decree in Civil Revision Petition No. 684 of 1974 made on 23rd of April, 1976 and it raises an important question of law, i.e. whether the voluntary amalgamation of the first and second appellants companies amounts to a transfer of the first appellants right under the lease within the meaning of S. 10(ii)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

2. The front corner portion of the premises bearing No. 8092/l/2 (new No. 5-1-1) situated at Rashtrapati Road at Secunderabad was let out on January 12,1959 to M/s General Radio & Appliances Co. (P) Ltd., the first appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- on the basis of the rental agreement dated January 12, 1959 (Exhibit P-6) executed by the first appellant. Clause 4 of the said agreement provides that the tenant shall not sub-let the premises or any portion thereof to anyone without the written consent of the landlord. The respondent-landlord M.A. Khader issued a notice dated December 26, 1968 to the tenant-appellant No. 1, M/s General Radio and Appliances (P) Ltd. terminating the tenancy on the ground of subletting and/or transfer and assignment of the interest of the Appellant No. 1 to the Appellant No. 2. Thereafter on April 7, 1969 the Rent Control Case No. 96 of 1969 was filed by the respondent- landlord for eviction of the Appellant-tenant on two grounds, i.e. (i) unauthorised subletting of the premises by the first appellant and (ii) wilful default in payment of rent from October 7, 1968 to April 7, 1969. The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint counter contending that there was neither subletting, nor assignment of the tenancy rights by the first appellant to the second appellant, i.e. the first appellant company was amalgamated with the second appellant company by operation of law under the scheme of amalgamation and order of the High Court of Bombay under Ss. 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and that the judgment of the Bombay High Court was judgment in Rem and it was binding on the petitioner even though he was not a party to the proceedings. It was further contended therein that by reason of order of the Bombay High Court all the property rights and powers of every description including tenancy right held by the M/s General Radio Appliance (P) Ltd., the appellant No. 1, have been blended with the second appellant company, M/s National Ecko Radio and Engineering Co. Ltd. and that there was no wilful default in payment of rent. The application for eviction should, therefore, be dismissed.

3. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the landlord and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the tenant. The Rent Controller, Secunderabad, on consideration of evidence on record held that the appellant No. 1 company has sublet the premises to the appellant No. 2 company without written consent of the landlord, as the amalgamation of the first appellant-company with the second appellant-company amounted to subletting or assignment. It was further held that there was wilful default in payment of rent for the period in question. The Rent Controller, therefore, allowed the application and directed the appellants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises under their occupation to the landlord-petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order.

4. Against this judgment and decree an appeal being Appeal No. 406 of 1972 was preferred before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. On 29-10-75 the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad after hearing the parties held that though the appellant No. 1 company voluntarily sponsored the scheme of amalgamation, the ultimate power to sanction or not to sanction it rested with the High Court. The scheme of amalgamation though proposed by appellant No. 1 company vo