The power to regulate letting and subletting of accommodation under Rule 81 (2) (bb) of the Defence of India Rules includes the power to evict tenants in specified circumstances.

Harnam Singh, J.

1. On 13-11-1948, the Assistant Rent Controller, Delhi, made an order under Clause 11-A (2) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Order, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Order, directing Mohinder Singh tenant to put Shrimati Shanti Devi landlord in possession of house No. 5764-05, Shanti Bhawan, 3, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on the finding that the tenant had without the consent of the landlord, sublet the entire house and used the house for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.

2. On 23-3-1948, Mohindar Singh instituted civil suit No. 219 of 1948 for declaration that Clause 11-A of the Order being ultra vires the order passed by the Controller on 13-11-1946, was not binding on him. Shrimati Shanti Devi resisted the suit.

3. Finding that Clause 11-A of the Order was ultra vires the Court of first instance decreed with costs civil suit No. 219 of 1948 on 6-7-1949.

4. From the decree passed by the Court of first instance on 6-7-1949, Shrimati Shanti Devi appealed in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. That appeal has been dismissed with costs.

5. Shrimati Shanti Devi defendant appeals under Section 100, Civil P. C. from the decree passed on appeal.

6. In these proceedings the point that arises for decision is whether Clause 11-A (2) (iii) of the Order is ultra vires.

7. In deciding the point the subordinate Courts seem to think that the Central Government was not empowered by Rule 81 (2) (bb) of the Defence of India Rules to enact Clause 11 (A) of the Order.

8. In approaching the matter I wish to state that there is a presumption in favour of the validity of the provision of law contained in Clause 11A (2) (iii) of the Order until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that that provision of law is ultra vires.

9. In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to set out the provisions of Rule 81 (2) (bb) of the Defence of India Rules. Those provisions read:

"The Central Government or the Provincial Government so far as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community may by order provide: x x x x x(bb) for regulating the letting and sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board, and in particular, (i) for controlling the rents for such accommodation either generally or when let to specified person or classes of persons or in specified circumstances; (ii) for preventing in specified circumstances the eviction of tenants and sub-tenants from such accommodation; and (iii) for requiring such accommodation to be let either generally, or to specified persons or classes of persons or in specified circumstances."

10. Indisputably, the power to make the impugned law is conferred, on the Central Government by Rule 31 (2) (bb) of the Defence of India Rules, and paras (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (bb) are merely illustrative of the power so conferred. For authority on this point - Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, AIR 1945 PC. 156 (A), may be seen.

11. Clause 11A (2) (iii) of the Order provides that if the controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied that the tenant has, without the consent of the landlord, sublet the entire house or used it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, the controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house. In plain English Clause 11A . (2) (iii) deals with the regulation of letting land subletting of accommodation within Clause (bb) of Rule 81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules.

12. Basing himself on -- Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada, (1896) A C 348 (B), Mr. Gosain urges that the provisions dealing with (he eviction of tenants do not fal