DESHPANDE, J. :- This case raises a question of importance as to the authority of any statutory tenant to assign his tenancy rights and is referred to the Division Bench by Kanade, J., because of his difference on this point with the view of Mts. Justice Sujata Manohar indicated in the case of Hargovind Dharamsey and Co. v. Ruby and Co., AIR 1979 Bom 69. The facts so far as relevant to the point raised are not in dispute, The petitioners are the heirs of the landlord - original defendant. He was the owner of house C.S. Nos. 319 and 320 situated at Peth Bhag, Sangli. House C.S. No. 319 with which we are concerned, consisted of a ground floor and the first floor. Both the houses were let out to one Labhashankar Pandya in the year 1940. He sublet the ground floor of House No. 319 to one Gopalkrishna. He was running a hotel therein. Sub-tenancy of Gopalkrishna was held to be valid in an earlier Civil Suit No. 138 of 1956 by the landlord against him and the tenant, long before Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rent Act') was amended in the year 1959. The landlord again instituted two suits for posses