MODI, J.—This is a tenants second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated December 20, 1972, upholding the decree passed by Munsiff, Sirohi, dated December 23, 1971.

2. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant, on October 13, 1969, for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment from the suit premises. The grounds on which the eviction was sought were three-fold. Firstly, that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for six months; secondly, that the landlord required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his personal use; and thirdly, that the tenant had sub let a part of the demised premises without the permission of the landlord. The defendant resisted the suit. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction solely on the ground that the tenant had sub-let a part of the premises to one Moolchand without the permission of the landlord. This finding was upheld by the lower appellate court. The tenant defendant has now preferred this second appeal.

3. Admittedly, on October 13, 1969, when the present suit for eviction was presented, the sub-tenant was not in occupation of the suit premises or any part thereof, By the time, that suit was filed, the sub tenant had vacated the premises. He was also not occupying the suit premises when the notice dated September 19, 1969, terminating the tenancy was sent. But, he was admittedly there occupying the part of the suit premises as sub-tenant when earlier notice dated October 23, 1967 was sent calling upon the appellant to vacate the premises. The above facts are no longer in dispute.

4. Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, provides.—

13. Eviction of tenant.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is is satisfied.........."

The Sub-section then sets out several ground of ejectment: Clause (e), which is relevant for our purposes, runs under, —

"(e). that the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of, the whole or any part of the premises without permission of the landlord; or."

The relevant words on which emphasis is laid on behalf of the defendant appellant are has sublet." It is argued that the use of the present perfect tense in this sub clause (e) contemplates a completed event connected in some way with the present time. In other words, it is argued that the words "has sub-let" suggest that the sub letting, which was made in the past has continued upto the present time i.e. up to the date of the suit. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since sub letting in the present case did not admittedly continue up to the date of the suit, the tenant cannot be deprived of the protection under section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and he cannot be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of his having sub-let the part of the suit premises without the permission of the landlord. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in Gappulal vs. Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji and another (1) and Lekh Ram vs. Firm Chander Bhan Rajinder Parkash (2). On the basis of these authorities, it is strenuously argued that the words "has sublet" in clause (e) of section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, meant that subletting in order to attract clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 must subsist at the date of the suit.

5. The Supreme Court considered Gappulals case (1) in its subsequent decision in Gajanan Dattatreya vs. Sherbanu Hosang Patel (3). On detailed considerati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document