ASHGBARATI Vs. SAIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for our consideration is whether there was a sub-letting prior to 1949, i. e. , prior to the coming into force of the central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') and whether the tenant was liable to be evicted under clause 13 (3 (iii) of the said Order.

(2.) Our answer should be in the affirmative. This question directly came up for consideration in Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarakadheeshji. Though that case related to the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the language employed is identical. However, what is argued before us is that the decision in Goppulal v. Dwarakadheeshji is distinguishable. In fact, such a distinction was made in Gurcharan Singh v. V. K. Kaushal. We may add here that this ruling of Gurcharan Singh v. V. K. Kaushal dealt with a situation where the language was "after the commencement of this Act, without the written consent of the landlord (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof". Thereafter, there is an express provision 'after the commencement of the Act' and that makes a world of difference.

(3.) The courts below are right in their decision. The Civil carries no merit, and is dismissed. No costs.