Judgment

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.

( 1 ) WHETHER on a proper construction of the terms of tenancy and the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the appellant is liable to be evicted from the premises in his occupation as tenant, on the ground of wrongful subletting of the premises, is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court.

( 2 ) THE appellant came into occupation of the shop-cum-flat No. 48, Sector 3-C, Chandigarh on and from 1st of April, 1974 as a tenant under the respondent who happens to be the owner of the said premises on terms and conditions contained in the rent-note dated 2-4-1974. For the sake of convenience we shall describe the appellant as the tenant and the respondent as the landlady of the premises.

( 3 ) THE landlady filed her present petition (R. A. No. 163 of 1977) in the Court of Rent Controller, Chandigarh, under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely, non-payment of rent and subletting of the flat portion and Barasati portion of the premises. On the said petition of the landlady, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh passed an order of eviction of the tenant on 17-11-1977 only on the ground of subletting. The other ground, namely, nonpayment of rent by the tenant, did not succeed.

( 4 ) AGAINST the order of Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 9-8-1978 dismissed the appeal of the tenant and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

( 5 ) AGAINST the judgment and order of the appellate authority, the tenant filed a revision petition under S. 15 of the Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court by its judgment dated 19-9-1978 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the tenant has filed this appeal with special leave granted by this Court, challenging the correctness of the decision ordering the eviction of the tenant from the said premises on the ground of subletting.

( 6 ) BEFORE we proceed to consider the arguments advanced from the Bar, it will be convenient to set out the terms of tenancy contained in the rent note dated 2-4-1974 and also the relevant provisions of the Act.

( 7 ) THE relevant terms contained in the rent note read as follows :-

"1. That the period, of tenancy shall be one month commencing from the 1-4-1974 to 30-4-1974.

2. That rent hereby fixed shall be Rupees 450 p. m.

4. That the possession of the said premises has already been received by the tenant from the owner.

( 8 ) THAT the tenant has a right to subjeet the flat portion and Barsati portion of this said SCF abovementioned.

14. At the expiry of the tenancy the tenant shall redeliver the vacant possession of the said premises to the owner in the original condition failing which he shall be liable to pay the mesne profits. "

8. The relevant provisions of the Act are contained in S. 13 of the Act, the material provisions of which may be noted :

"13. (1) A tenant in possession of building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether beforeor after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section, or in pursuance of an order made under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, as subsequently amended.

(2) 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 applicant, is satisfied-

(I) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement