ORDER:- This is tenant's petition challenging the appellate order in rent control proceedings commenced on an application under Clause 13 (3) of the C. C. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order'), maintaining the order of the Rent Controller granting permission to respondent No. 1 landlady under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control order to terminate petitioner's tenancy on the ground of subletting.

2. Respondent No. 1 landlady filed an application under Clause 13 (3) (ii) and (iii) of the Rent Control Order for permission to terminate petitioner's tenancy on the grounds that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and that he unauthorisedly created sub-tenancy in favour of one Pandurang Gulabrao Deshmukh, since deceased, whose legal representatives are present respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter and that he inducted a sub-tenant without written permission of the landlady, and consequently granted permission on both the counts. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Resident Deputy Collector with appellate powers set aside the finding of the Rent Controller on the point of habitual default, but maintained the finding on the issue of creation of sub-tenancy. The appellate authority thus maintained the order of the Rent Controller so far as it granted permission to respondent No. 1 to terminate petitioner's tenancy under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control Order. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in this petition.

3. Shri Bobde, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner cannot be evicted from the suit premises under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control Order, because the subtenancy was not created by him. According to him, Clause 13 (3) (iii) postulates creation of sub-tenancy by the tenant who is sought to be evicted. Shri Chandurkar, learned advocate for respondent No. 1, made two-fold submissions. Firstly, he contended that in fact the tenancy was created by the petitioner. His alternative submission is, if the sub-tenancy is illegal, then the present tenant can be evicted though sub-tenancy might have been created by the earlier tenant.

4. Clause 13 (1) of the Rent Control Order lays down that no landlord shall, except with the previous written permission of the Controller give notice to a tenant determining the lease or determining the lease if the lease is expressed to be determinable at his option: or where the lease is determinable by efflux of the time limited thereby require the tenant to vacate the house by process of law or otherwise if the tenant is willing to continue the lease on the same terms and conditions. Such permission can be granted on grounds enumerated in item Nos. (i) to (ix) of sub-clause (3) of Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order, if after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied that one or more of the said grounds exist. Clause 13 (3) (iii) thus lays down that if after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has without the written permission of the landlord sublet the entire house or any portion thereof, he shall grant the landlord permission to give notice to determine the lease as required by sub-cl.(1).

5. The words 'has sublet' appearing in the analogous clause of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, were interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case Gappulal v. Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji (AIR 1969 SC 1291). In that case, the question that fell for consideration of their Lordships was whether a tenant could be evicted on the ground of creation of sub-tenancy without the permission of the landlord but before the commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The question was answered in the affirmative on the following interpretation of the words 'has sublet':

"The present perfect tense contemplates a compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document