(1.) THESE are cross revisions against the judgment of the Senior Sub Judge Ajmer in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.
(2.) RAM Kishore is the tenant and Mst. Bhanwari Bai is the landlord. The suit out of which the present revisions arise was based on an oral tenancy with respect to a shop and a 'kothri' (room) situate in Ghee Mandi, Ajmer. The plaintiff Bhanwari Bai's case was that defendant RAM Kishore had sub-let the shop to Hanumanprasad and Prahlad who were running a ration shop, and sub-let the Kothri to one Shankerlal, and that both these sub-lettings had been done sometime in 1951 without the consent of the plaintiff The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit for arrears of rent and ejectment on the 9th September, 952. It may be stated at once that there is no dispute about the arrears of rent at this stage, and therefore, it is unnecessary to state the contentions of the Parties in hat connection. The defendant contended that the he had not sub-let either the shop or the Kothri at all, and, therefore, the Plaintiff's suit for ejectment deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) PUT in a nut-shell : my conclusion is that clause (1) (b) (ii) sec. 9 does not provide for or govern the case of a part sub-letting or for that matter a partial parting with of possession by another made after the commencement of the Act of 1947 at all; and it really deals with the case of sub-letting of the entire premises, or parting with the entire possession thereof by assignment or otherwise (but that is not material for our present purposes) whether before or after the commencement of the said Act; and my further conclusion is that it is only clause (l) (c) of this section which governs the case of partial sub-letting after the commencement of the Act. If this conclusion is correct, and the more I have thought of this, the more convinced I am that that is so, then there is no contradiction between the two clauses, and they can be read harmoniously the one without in any manner impinging upon the effect of the other.