LAKSHMI SHANKER MEHROTRA Vs. S M SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, after hearing both the learned counsel, we are clearly of the view that the appellant is entitled to succeed for the following reasons :

(2.) The appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of sub-letting of the premises in question which came to be allotted to the tenant by the District Magistrate. The suit was under Section 3 (e) of U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III of 1947. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, it came to be reversed which is confirmed in the second appeal. The concurrent finding is that, no doubt, there is a sub-letting, however, the landlord-appellant had impliedly consented to such a sub-letting.

(3.) In this appeal before us, Mr E. C. Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellants would urge that admittedly, in this case. Section 7 (3 of the Act had not been complied with insofar as the permission of the District Magistrate had not been obtained for such a sub-letting. Therefore, it is prima facie proof ofsub-letting. This can be pressed into service for eviction on the ground of sub- letting under Section 3 (e). This aspect of the matter unfortunately was not a considered by the court of first appeal or by the High court.