This Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the House Rent Controller, Madras. The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 10 of Act XVIII of 1960, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to various other unions who committed nuisance acts of waste using the building for purposes other than that for which it was leased, and also on the ground that the landlord required the portion bona fide for his own use and occupation as additional accommodation. The petitioner is the Petroleum Workers’ Union, represented by the General Secretary. According to the respondent-landlord, contrary to the terms of the tenancy, the petitioner-union used to allow its sister-unions to conduct their meetings, that such meetings were noisy and stonmy causing nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions of the premises, and that they had sub-let the premises to the other unions collecting rents from them. The other ground alleged by the landlord was that the portion in the occupation of the petitioner was required for additional accommodation for the various purposes of the business since the building which they till then occupied had become dilapidated and had to be pulled down.

The petitioner herein resisted the petition, on the ground that the original tenancy was in the name of Standard Vacuum Employees’ Union and after amalgamation with the Caltex Employees Union they were known as the Petroleum Workers Union, that the respondent herein was aware of the several changes and that the landlord was also aware that the tenancy was taken nominally in the name of the Standard Vacuum Employees’ Union while in fact it was to cover various other unions which had their registered office at the premises The tenant also alleged that they had a right to conduct the meetings as part of the tenancy, that the meetings were conducted with a sense of decorum and discipline and that it was incorrect to say that there was nuisance or act of waste. Finally the petitioner alleged that the premises occupied by them would be totally unsuited for the occupation of the petitioner. On these pleadings the parties went to trial before the House Rent Controller, Madras.

The two important questions that arose before the Rent Controller and before the appellate authority were whether the petitioner sub-let the premises in then-occupation and whether the respondent-landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation. Both the Rent Contrloller as well as the appellate authority found that there was a case of sub-letting by the tenant and that the respondent required the portion occupied by the tenant, for additional accommodation.

Against the order of eviction by the Courts below, the tenant-Union has preferred this Revision Petition. The important points that arise for consideration, on the facts alleged in the petition and on the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller, are whether there is a case of sub-letting and whether the landlord requires the portion in the occupation of the tenant for his own use as additional accommodation.

A sub-lease is a demise by a lessee for a lesser term than he himself has. Every lessee, however, short his term may be, may make a sub-lease unless he is restrained by the contract of the tenancy from sub-letting. If the demise is for the whole term or for a period beyond the term, it amounts to assignment. If the lessee divests himself he becomes a stranger to the demised property and he has no right to have possession delivered up to him. It is true that a covenant against sub-letting will restrain the assignment, but a mere covenant against sub-letting does not prohibit underletting a part of the premises. As long as the lessee remains in possession, he may permit another person to use the demised premises without committing a breach of covenant, namely, not to assign, underlet or part with the possession of the demised premises. In the Court o