W. Broome, J. - (1.) The following question has been referred to us for decision on the initiative of D.S. Mathur, J. "Can the District Magistrate issue an order Under Sec. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in a case where the landlord has Authorized the tenant to sub let the whole or a part of the accommodation - D.S. Mathur, J pointed out that in Ram Autar Agarwal v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (1) (1964 AWR 260) a learned Judge of this Court (G.C. Mathur) had held that the D.M. could not allot accommodation that was previously in the occupation of a sub tenant. In his view that decision required re consideration -hence the present reference.
(2.) Mr. Banarsi Das, appearing for the Petitioner Srichand Lal, has attempted to argue that there was no proper permission in writing by the landlord authorizing the tenant in this case to sub -let, as required by the Sub -section (3) of Sec. 7 of the Act; but this is a question with which we are not at all concerned while deciding the present reference. The question referred to us for decision pre supposes that the landlord has validity authorized the tenant to sub let; and all that we have been asked to determine is whether in such circumstances the D.M. has the power to allot the sublet accommodation under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 7. The point sought to be raised by Mr. Banarsi Das, therefore, cannot be decided by us but must be left to be determined by D.S. Mathur, J., when we have given our reply to the specific question that has been referred to us.
(3.) In Ram Autar Agarwal v/s. State of U.P. (1) G.C. Mathur, J. has made the following observations: Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 7 do not contemplate a vacancy occurring on a Sub tenant vacating any accommodation in his occupation. To a vacancy occurring on the vacation of an accommodation by a sub tenant Sub -section (3) of Sec. 7 applies. If such a vacancy were covered by Sub -sections (1) and (2) then here was no necessity to enact Sub -section (sic) also..... If Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 7 were applicable to ah accommodation vacated by a subtenant, then Sub -section (3) Would become redundant as in that case the D.M. could allot the accommodation to any person and no question would arise under Sub -section (3) of seeking the permission of the D.M. and of the landlord...... Where a sub tenant vacates an accommodation it is open to the tenant in chief either to induct another sub tenant or not to do so. If he decides on the former course he must first obtain the permission' of the landlord and of the D.M. to do so. When he applies to the D.M. for permission, the D.M. may either grant the permission or refuse it, but he cannot make an order of allotment Under Sec. 7(2). But if the tenant in chief does not desire to induct another subtenant he need not inform the D.M. and can; occupy the accommodation himself. It is unnecessary, in that case, for him. to apply for release of the accommodation Under Rule 6. With great respect to the learned Judge, we feel constrained to observe that he has built up his argument on a, false premise, namely that if Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 7 were to apply to sub tenancies, Sub -section (3), of Sec. 7 would be unnecessary and redundant. Clause (3) it is to be noted, introduces in the case of sub tenancies an entirely fresh requirement that is not found in Clauses(1) and (2), viz. the necessity for obtaining written permission from the landlord. And reading all the clauses harmoniously together, we see no reason to hold that Clauses (1) and (2) of the Sec. do not apply to case of sub letting.;