A tenant, who validly sublet the building before coming into force of the Rent Act within the area of Chandigarh, is not liable to ejectment after its enforcement on the ground mentioned in Section 13(2)(ii)(a).

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.

1. This judgement will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 337 of 1978 1366 of 1977. The short question that arises for determination in these cases is whether a tenant, who validly sublet the building before coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Act) within the area of Chandigarh is liable to ejectment after its enforcement on the ground mentioned in Section 13(2)(ii)(a).

2. The facts which gave rise to Civil Revision No. 337 of 1978 are as follows :-

Surjit Singh is the owner of House No. 3255 situated in Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. He let it out to Rattan Lal Aggarwal, respondent No. 1, at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. Subsequently, by the consent of the parties, the rent was increased to Rs. 470/- per month with effect from Mar. 19, 1975. The respondent before enforcement of the Rent Act sublet a part of the building to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act for ejectment of the respondents inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 sublet a portion of the building to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 without his consent. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the eviction petition and pleaded that they were in possession before the enforcement of the Rent Act and consequently were not liable to ejectment. However, respondent No. 4 did not contest the petition. The learned Rent Controller gave a finding to the effect that respondent No. 1 had sublet a part of the building to respondents Nos. 2 to 4. He, however, held that the respondents could not be ordered to be ejected on the ground of subletting as respondent No. 1 sublet the premises before enforcement of the Rent Act in the town of Chandigarh. Consequently he dismissed the petition. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, who confirmed the judgement of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. He has come up in revision to this Court.

3 It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if a tenant, whether having a right to sublet or not, sublet a building prior to coming into force of the Rent Act, the landlord has a right to eject the tenant after its enforcement on the ground mentioned in S.13(2)(ii)(a). In support of his contention he placed reliance mainly on Gappulal V/s. Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji, AIR 1969 SC 1291; Civil Revision No. 980 of 1965 decided on 20-4-67; Des Raj V/s. P.N. Kaul (1978) 1 Ren CR 330 (Punj and Har); Nand Kishore V/s. Krishan Lal (1979) 1 Ren CR 411 (Punj and Har) and Kishori Lal V/s. Basant Singh (1979) 812 Pun LR 148 : (AIR 1979 Punj and Har 160).

4. In order to decide the question it would be proper to determine in the first instance whether respondent No. 1 could sublet the building to other respondents when it was sublet to them. It is not disputed that the building was sublet by respondent No. 1 before coming into force of the Rent Act. No lease deed executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 has been produced. In order to determine whether respondent No. 1 had a right to sublet the building or not, we shall have to take into consideration the general law. It is a settled proposition of law that the general principles of the Transfer of Property Act relating to leases are applicable in the State of Punjab. Cl.(j) of S.108 authorises the lessee to sub -lease whole or art his interest in the property. This is subject to the condition that there is no contract to the contrary between the landlord and the tenant. In case there is an express prohibition to the effect that the tenant cannot sub-lease the property, in that eventuality he has no right to do so. In the aforesaid view we get force from the observations of the Full Bench in Bishamber Dutt Roshan Lal V/s. Gian Chand Charan Das AIR 1970 Punj and Har 60 wherein it was held that there is no prohibition against subletting and it is only if it is expressly provided in term