B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

The matter is heard finally with the consent of Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the appellant tenant, Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 – landlord, and Shri M.J. Khan, learned AGP for respondent No. 5, in the light of order dated 20.03.2012.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Sudhakar, brother of present appellant was the tenant – inducted by Respondent No. 1. Said Sudhakar expired in 1986. The landlord filed Small Cause Suit No. 79 of 2003 against Madhukar, present appellant and legal heirs of deceased Sudhakar, for their eviction under Sections 15 and 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 1999 Act). One of the contentions was, the premises were unauthorizedly sub-let to present appellant – Madhukar. The suit was dismissed on 22.07.2008 and in Regular Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2008 preferred by Respondent No. 1, the District Judge, Amravati, set aside that judgment and decreed the suit. Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2011 was then filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by present appellant and the learned Single Judge dismissed that writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal is challenging the said dismissal of writ petition. On 20.03.2012, while issuing notice, this Court noted the contention that sub-tenancy to attract provisions of Section 16(1)(e)(ii) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, must have commenced after the said Act came into force. It is not in dispute that the 1999 Act has come into force on 31.03.2000.

3. Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel, in this background has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TirathRam vs. Gurubachan Singh, reported at AIR 1987 SC 770, to urge that sub-tenancy created before coming into force of 1995 cannot be used to evict tenant under 1999 Act. He also pointed out the judgment in the case of K. Manickchand vs. Elias Saleh Mohammed Sait, reported at AIR 1969 SC 751, particularly para 18 to explain how the words “commencement of the Act” need to be construed. A judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai vs. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2011 (4) Mh. L.J. 556, is also relied upon to show how there the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that unauthorized sub-letting after 01.02.1973 can only be made a ground for eviction under provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Act).

4. Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of DharamdasMangilal Jain vs. Shrikuwar Pannalal Mutha, reported at 1993 Mh.L.J. 160, to submit that the words “has sublet” employed in clause (e) are determinative and a sub-tenancy created prior to 31.12.2000 and in force on the said date can, therefore, also be made use of. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gappulalvs. Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji and another, reported at AIR 1969 SC 1291 and dictionary meaning of the word “has”. He invites attention to the opening words used in sub-clause (i) or (ii) with the contention that there the words “on or after” are deliberately used. According to him, if the submission of the appellant/tenant is to be accepted, words “on or” are rendered surplus. He points out that both words “on” and “after” are used in disjunctive sense and occupy different field. To further buttress his submission, he also relies upon the provisions of Section 25 in Chapter VI of 1999 Act. He submits that otherwise the all sub-tenancies created illegally would have been regularized on uniform basis and then Section 25 itself would get defeated.

5. Before proceeding further, we find it proper to first reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 16(1)(e), which is as under:

“16.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of section 25, a