- (1.) The appellant-landlord is aggrieved by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. By this judgment in revision, High Court reversed the judgments of two Courts below ordering eviction of the respondent-tenant on a petition filed by the appellant under clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) as applicable to the State of Gujarat. Under this clause, a landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises on the ground that the tenant has since the coming into operation of this Act unlawfully sub-let the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein.
(2.) The premises in question is a shop. It was let out to the tenant Bakerali Fatehali (Bakerali for short) by predecessor of the appellant w.e.f. December 1, 1946. A rent note was duly executed. The premises were sold to the appellant in 1947. Bakerali executed a second rent note in favour of the appellant. There is no dispute that both the rent notes contained a clause that the premises had been taken on lease by Bakerali for his own use and occupation and that he shall not sublet the premises in favour of anybody.
(3.) At this stage, we may also refer to Sec. 15 of the Act which puts an embargo on the tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. This is, however, subject to any contract to the contrary. Thus, irrespective of there being no clause in the rent note entitling the tenant to sub-let the premises the law forbids him from doing so. He cannot even assign or transfer in any other manner his interest in the tenanted premises. In the present case, a clause in the rent note specifically forbids Bakerali from sub-letting the premises.;