Judgement

NATARAJAN, J.:- This Appeal by Special Leave is by a landlord and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977: (reported in (1984) 1 Rent CR 299). In an eviction suit filed under S. 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) against the tenant and the sub-tenant (respondents 2 and 1 respectively) in respect of two premises, there was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant and in terms thereof the Rent Controller decreed the eviction of the first respondent from the premises sub-leased to him. An appeal to the Appellate Authority proved of no avail and hence the first respondent filed Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977 under S. 15(5) of the Act to the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision holding that no order of eviction can be passed under S. 13(2) of the Act as the sub-tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh were the property is situate. The High Courts order is challenged in this appeal.

2. The brief facts requiring notice may now be seen. The appellant/landlord let out in the first instance, a shop-cum-flat No. 7 to the second respondent in 1963 and subsequently in 1967 he leased out the adjoining two flats also to him. The second respondent sub-let the two flats to the first respondent. It is common ground that the sub-letting was long prior to 4-11-1972 when the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

3. On March 8, 1973 the appellant filed a suit and sought eviction of both the respondents on various grounds but all of them except the ground of unauthorised subletting were given up. The petition was contested by both the respondents. However, at the stage of arguments the appellant and the second respondent entered into a compromise between themselves and in terms thereof the appellant gave up his claim for eviction of the second respondent from the shop-cum-flat in his occupation. Thereafter the second respondent conceded that he had sub-let the two flats to the first respondent without the consent of the appellant and hence an order of eviction confined to the two flats sub-leased to the first respondent may follow. An appeal to the Appellate Authority having failed the first respondent filed a revision to the High Court under S. 15(5) of the Act and succeeded in having the order of eviction set aside.

4. Mr. Anil Dev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant sought to assail the order of the High Court on various grounds. The first ground was that when the second respondent had admitted the factum of the unauthorised sub-lease and when the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had acted on his admission, the High Court was in error in interfering with the order of eviction concurrently passed by the courts below. This argument is devoid of merit because the admitted position is that the Act came into force in the area concerned only on 4-11-1972 whereas the sub-lease had been effected much earlier. In view of that position the High court was entitled to set right the error committed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in ordering eviction under S. 13(2) of the Act. As a matter of fact the High Court was bound to set right the error in view of its own decision in Surjit Singh v. Rattan Lal, AIR 1980 Punj & Har 319 and this Courts decision in Gurcharan Singh v. V.K. Kaushal, (1981) 1 SCR 490 : (AIR 1980 SC 1866). In both these cases it has been laid down that an order of eviction cannot be passed under S. 13(2) of the Act if the sub-letting was prior to the Act coming into force in the area concerned.

5. The second ground urged was an alternative plea and it was argued that even without reference to S. 13(2) of the Act the sub-lease was not lawful because the lease deed entered into between the parties contained a clause interdicting any sub-lease without the written consent of the landlord. In other words, the argument w