and therefore he inducted the defendant on the premises under an agreement the terms of which have been set out fully in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It is not necessary to reproduce all those terms except one and that is that the defendant was to be liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 101/- per month by way of his share in the profits of the shop which the defendant was going to run in that block.

(3) It is common ground that for the period in suit the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff any money in pursuance of this term and therefore the latter had to institute the suit out of which this second appeal arises.

(4) It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the transaction in question was in fact a sub lease made by the plaintiff in contravention of Cl. 12-A of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. Therefore, according to him, the agreement between the parties was rendered void under S. 23 of the Contract Act and the plaintiff

was not entitled to recover anything from him. He also contended that the owner of the house in which the block is situate was one Balgovind, that the plain tiff was a tenant not of Balgovind but of one Sheodas who claims to own the house and that as Sheodas has failed to establish his title against Balgovind the plaintiff could not get the status of a tenant and therefore could not in law create the relationship of a sub-lesser and sub-lessee between himself and the defendant.

(5) The trial Court upheld the defendants contention that the transaction was in contravention of Cl. 12-A of the Rent Control Order and on that ground dismissed the plaintiffs suit. It however did not give any findings on other points raised by the defendant, The lower appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court.

(6) Clause 12-A of the Rent Control Order reads thus :

"No person being a tenant shall sub-let any portion of the accommodation under his occupation except in pursuance of a condition in the lease deed executed in favour of the tenant or with the written consent of the landlord."

Now, this clause is clearly in contravention of S. 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act which reads thus :

"In the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary, the less

or and the lessee of immoveable 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 :

Rights and Liabilities of the lessee.

* * *

(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."

The aforesaid clause attaches an implied term to the contract of sub-lease between a sub-lessor and a sub lessee. The question is whether the Provincial Government which promulgated the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, could abrogate this implied term by making a rule, i.e. Cl. 12-A.

(7) Shri Bobde, who appears for the defendant said that this rule along with the other provisions contained in the Rent Control Order had been made by virtue of the power conferred by S. 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, and particularly referred to clauses

(a) and (b) thereof. It will therefore be useful to re produce here the whole of S. 2 :

"The State Government may, by general or special order which shall extend to such areas as the State Government may, by notification, direct, provide for regulating the letting and sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board and in particular :

(a) for controlling the rents for such accommodation either generally

Click Here to Read the rest of this document