( 1 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 11 are the plaintiffs. Theyare the trustees of a public trust to which the suit premises belong. Respondents 12 and 13 are original tenants. Respondent 14 is the manager of defendant No. 4 who in his turn is the petitioner before us. The plaintiffs let out the suit premises to defendants 1 and 2 on 1st July 1966 Defendants 1 and 2 started therein restaurant business. On 10th July 1967 defendants 1 and 2 transferred to defendant 4 their business with stock-in-trade goodwill and tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. On 26th December 1967 the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of defendants 1 and 2 on various grounds and thereafter instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs urged before the trial Court several grounds on which they sought possession of the suit premises to which the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 is applicable. The learned trial Judge negatived all grounds except one. He found against defendants 1 and 2 that they had unlawfully transferred to defendant 4 their tenancy rights and that they were not protected by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 of the Rent Act. In view of this finding which the learned trial Judge recorded he passed against defendant 1 and 2 decree for possession on the ground specified in clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the Rent Act. Defendant 4 who was directly affected by this decree appealed against it to the District Court. The learned appellate Judge confirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.

( 2 ) IT is that appellate decree which is challenged by defendant No. 4 in this Civil Revision Application.

( 3 ) THE question which has been raised by Miss Shah on behalf of defendant No. 4 is whether defendant 4 is the unlawful transfer from defendants 1 and 2 or whether he is protected by the notification issued under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 of the Rent Act.

( 4 ) BEFORE we deal with the legal contention which has been raised in this case it is necessary to have a look at the relevant covenant recited in rent note Ex. 70. It provides that the tenants shall not sub-let the suit premises to any one nor will they transfer their tenancy rights to any one. It further provides that if the tenants want to transfer the tenancy rights with goodwill of the business or in any other manner the written consent of the landlords shall be obtained by them. It is clear therefore that this covenant created an express contractual obligation for defendants 1 and 2 not to transfer the tenancy rights to any one except with the written consent of the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) WE now turn to sec. 15 of the Rent Act. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 provides as follows:"notwithstanding anything contained in any law but subject to any contract to the contrary it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein Provided that the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette permit in any area the transfer of interest in premises held under such leases or class of leases and to such extent as may be specified in the notification. IT has been argued by Miss Shah that the proviso creates a right in favour of the tenants to sub-let the premises to which the notification issued thereunder applies. Before we examine the argument which she has raised it is necessary to note the historical aspect of this section and then to analyse it. The expression but subject to any contract to the con trary was inserted in sub-sec. (1) for the first time by Bombay Act 49 of 1959. The proviso itself did not occur in the Act as it was originally enacted but was inserted by Bombay Act 36 of 1948. Sub-sec. (1) with the proviso annexed to it as it was prior to its amendment in 1959 came up for construction before the Supreme Court