Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The only point urged in this revision relates to Interpretation of Clause (e) of Sec. 20(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This clause provides: Section 20(2) - -A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building, after the termination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds: (e) that the tenant has sublet, in contravention of Sec. 25, or as the case may be, of the Old Act, whole or any part of the building,...
(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that to attract this provision a tenant should sub -let an accommodation after the coming into force of the 1972 Act in a case where 1972 Act is applicable. This construction does not appeal to me. The clause uses the word 'has' in the phrase 'tenant has sublet' in respect of the new Act as well as the Old Act. If it were construed to mean sub -letting in presents then the clause will never apply to the Old Act. The word 'has' only signifies an actual event of sub -letting whether it be prior to or after the commencement of the 1972 Act. The submission made on behalf of the applicant has no merit. The finding of fact is that the applicant sublet the accommodation in contravention of the 1972 Act.
(3.) The Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.;