The title contemplated by Section 29A of the Rent Act, which allows parties to sue in a competent court to establish their title to premises, does not include titles arising from the provisions of the Act itself.

1. A rather important question arises in this appeal as to the effect to be given to the provisions of Section 29A (Rent Act.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by three plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was the tenant of the first defendant. The property was then purchased from the first defendant by the second defendant sometime in 1949 and the property was subsequently purchased from the second defendant by the third defendant.

Plaintiffs 2 and 3 contended that they were the lawful sub-tenants of the first plaintiff. A notice to quit was given by the landlord on 6-12-1947 and a suit was filed in the Small Cause Court by the landlord on 29-4-1948. to eject the first plaintiff. To this suit he also made plaintiffs 2 and 3 parties alleging that they were trespassers and had no right to be on the premises.

The Small Cause Court raised various issues in that suit) and one issue which it decided and with which we are concerned is that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not lawful sub-tenants, that the first plaintiff had sublet the premises to plaintiffs 2 and 3 contrary to law, and therefore had deprived himself of the protection of the Rent Act. The Small Cause Court, therefore, passed a decree for ejectment against all three plaintiffs.

The three plaintiffs appealed to a Bench of the Small Cause Court and the Bench also upheld the decision of the trial Court on this issue. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the City Civil Court from which this appeal arises, and the suit was substantially by plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the relief that plaintiffs 2 and 3 sought was for a declaration that they were the lawful sub-tenants of the first plaintiff in respect of the premises and entitled to the possession, use and occupation of the said premises as sub-tenants.

An issue as to the maintainability of the suit was raised by the City Civil Court and the learned Judge decided that issue in favour of the plain tiffs, but on merits held that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not lawful sub-tenants and therefore dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs have now come is appeal, and the first question that arises in limine is whether in view of Section 28, Rent Act (Act 57 of 1947) the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Section 10, Rent Act 1944 provided :

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force, a tenant may sub-let any portion of his premises to a sub-tenant provided he forthwith intimates in writing to his landlord the fact of his having so sub-let the premises and also the rent at which they have been sub-let".

This alleged sub-letting took place when this Act of 1944 was in force, but it should be borne in mind that the Act of 1944 gave no protection to the subtenant, nor did it create any privity of contract between the sub-tenant and the landlord. When we come to the present Act LVII of 1947, Section 14 provides :

"Where the interest of a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let before the coming into operation of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued."

Therefore, a right has been created in favour of the sub-tenant under Section 14, which right does not exist under the ordinary law. There is no privity of contract or interest between a sub-tenant and a landlord, and under the ordinary law if a landlord gets a decree for ejectment against his tenant his sub-tenant could be ejected under that decree.

But Section 14 puts the sub-tenant in the same position as the tenant, and therefore he is entitled to claim under Section 12 the same protection which the tenant himself can claim. This was the very issue that the sub-tenant raised before the Small Cause Court. Whereas the contention of the landlord was that