Unlawful subletting need not subsist at suit date; prior proof of subletting is enough to sustain eviction.

Unlawful subletting under section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is made out once it is shown that the tenant had sublet the premises unlawfully; the sub-tenancy need not continue to exist on the date of the suit. The expression "has sublet" was treated as referring to the fact of subletting having occurred, not to a continuing state up to filing. The Court distinguished earlier authority as arising in a different statutory context and rejected the argument that a tenant could defeat eviction by ending the sub-tenancy after notice. The eviction decree was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting under section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the sub-tenancy must continue to exist on the date of the suit, or whether proof that unlawful subletting had taken place before notice is sufficient.

Analysis: The expression "has sublet" was held to refer to the factum of unlawful subletting having taken place, and not to a requirement that the sub-tenancy must subsist up to the date of the suit. Once unlawful subletting is established, the tenant falls within the mischief of the statutory ground of eviction. The Court distinguished the earlier decision relied upon by the appellant, explaining that it dealt with a different statutory context and did not lay down that the subletting must continue till the filing of the suit. Accepting the appellant's view would enable a tenant to defeat the statutory ground merely by causing the sub-tenant to vacate after notice.

Conclusion: The existence of the sub-tenancy at the date of suit was not necessary. Proof of prior unlawful subletting was sufficient, and the eviction decree was upheld in favour of the respondent.

---