This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari, and for quashing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in C.M.A. No 35 of 1950.

The first respondent, Desu Rangaiah, took the premises bearing Door No. 258., Ward No. 5, Stonehousepet, Nellore, belonging to the petitioner on rent 10 years ago for his business. Two years back he entered into a partnership with Thadikamalla Venkataseshayya and Posa Veeranna for carrying on business in onions. The partnership arrangement was embodied in a deed, Exhibit B-I. Under Exhibit B-I the leasehold interest was not transferred to the partners. That related only to the partnership business to be carried on jointly by the first respondent Desu Rangiah, Venkateseshayya and Posa Veeranna. It regulated only the rights and liabilities in regard to the business. The first respondent continued to be in possession of the premises with a liability to pay rent to the petitioner. The rent originally was a sum of Rs. 10. It was enhanced from time to time till it reached the present rate of Rs. 60. Further requests for enhanced rent by the landlord were not acceded to by the first respondent. Presumably this circumstance made the landlord to file M.B.C. No. 32 of 1950 on the file of the House Rent Controller, Nellore, for evicting the first respondent from the premises. The main ground for eviction was that the first respondent had sub-let the premises to the second respondent’s firm. It was alleged that the first respondent was carrying on business in Srirangarajapuram after sub-letting the premises to the second respondent who was described in the petition as Tadikamalla Venkataseshaih Posa Veeranna, represented by its two partners. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. In appeal the Subordinate Judge held that there was no sub-letting, and on that finding dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed the above writ.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised before me that same point, which has been negatived by the Subordinate Judge. He contended that by reason of the partnership, in law there was a sub-letting of the premises to the second respondent within the meaning of section 7(2)(ii) of Act XXV of 1949. The relevant portion of the section reads:

“Section 7(a):A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied-

(ii) that the tenant has after the 23rd October, 1945, without a written consent of the landlord-

(a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so, the controller shall make an order directing the tenant.......”

Under this clause, a landlord would be entitled to evict his tenant if he transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or any portion thereof. It was not stated in the petition that the first respondent transferred his right under the lease deed; nor was that point raised before the Subordinate Judge. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to evict the first respondent, only if he established that the first respondent sub-let the premises to the second respondent.

The scope of the word “sub-let” has been the subject of judicial determination in connection with covenants prohibiting sub-letting and imposing the penalty of forfeiture, if the covenants are contravened. In Pebbles v. Glosthwaite1, Romer, J., considered the scope of such a covenant. One Phillip took from the defendant’s predecessor-in-title a lease of the first and second floors of a premises. It contained a proviso for re-entry by the lessors in case of a breach of the lessee’s covenants, and one of these covenants was that he would not assign, underlet or part with the possession of the demised premises without the previous licence in writing of the lessors. After the death of Phillip, his executor