BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal raises an interesting point of interpretation of the provisions of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The question is :

( 2 ) WHERE a landlord proposes to evict a tenant and a sub-tenant both by a suit, is it sufficient for him to obtain the permission under Section 3 of the Act as against the tenant only or should he obtain such permission as against the tenant and the sub-tenant both !

( 3 ) THE two Courts below have differed in their answers to this question. The trial Court held that the permission under Section 3 of the Act as against the tenant was sufficient against the sub-tenant also. The learned District Judge took an opposite view and held that without an express permission as against the sub-tenant also, the sub-tenant could not be evicted.

( 4 ) THE material facts are that the plaintiffs-appellants are the owners of a shop in the city of aligarh. Several years ago, they let it out to Chandrapal, defendant 1. In 1940, Chandrapal sublet it to Girdhari Lal, defendant 2. The plaintiffs appellants applied to the Town Rationing-Officer for a permission to sue Chandrapal, the tenant, for eviction. Chandrapal contested that application but the Town Rationing Officer granted it. Chandrapal went up in revision to the district Magistrate, but it was dismissed. The plaintiffs then brought a suit on 21-1-1949, for the recovery of Rs. 40, as arrears of rent and for the eviction of Chandrapal and Girdhari Lal both. The claim proceeded ex parte as against Chandrapal, but Girdhari Lal contested it. The only ground of defence with which we are concerned in the present appeal is that the permission obtained as against Chandrapal does not enure as against Girdhari Lal and so he could not be ejected for want of necessary permission under Section 3 of the Act. This contention was repelled by the trial Court and it decreed the suit for Rs. 36-8-0 as arrears of rent and for ejectment. The learned District Judge held that, in the absence of permission to evict Girdhari lal, the claim for his ejectment could not be decreed against him. He, therefore, dismissed the claim of ejectment as against Girdhari Lal, but upheld the rest of the decree.

( 5 ) A perusal of the preamble of the Act will show that it seeks to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants. The object of the Act is;

"to control the letting and the rent of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. "

The Act does not apply where the owner of an accommodation seeks to evict a trepasser or a licenser brings such a suit against the licensee--hence the word "suit" in Section 3 of the Act means suit by a landlord against the tenant. There is an intrinsic indication of this in the section itself. Thus one of the grounds for eviction without permission, according to Clause (a) of the section, is--"that the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord. "

( 6 ) THIS clearly shows that the suit contemplated by that section is by a landlord against a tenant. In other clauses also of that section the word "tenant" appears and the same inference follows. The permission contemplated by that section has to be obtained by the landlord against his tenant and not against a person who is not his tenant. This brings us to the consideration of the question as to what are the meanings of the words "landlord" and "tenant" in this Act. These two terms have been defined in Clauses (c) and (g) of Section 2 as follows:

" landlord means a person to whom rent is payable by a tenant in respect of any accommodation and includes the agent, attorney, heir or assignee of the landlord and a tenant in relation to his sub-tenant. " tenant means the person by whom rent is, or, but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any accommodation, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document