Protected sub-tenant possession ends after statutory period, leaving occupation without consent and defeating the damages claim.

A sub-tenant is within the statutory concept of tenancy, but on surrender of the tenant-in-chief's interest the sub-tenant's protection continues only for the shorter of the remaining sub-lease term or five years under Section 47(4) of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Once that protected period expires, possession is no longer referable to a subsisting tenancy right and is treated as possession without consent, making Section 180 applicable rather than Section 175. The record also failed to provide cogent and satisfactory evidence of damages, so the damages claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after surrender of the tenant-in-chief's interest and expiry of the protected period under the sub-lease, the defendant's possession was that of a non-occupancy tenant attracting Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act or of a person retaining possession without consent attracting Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.

Analysis: A sub-tenant falls within the statutory concept of tenancy, and Section 47 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provides that extinction of the tenant's interest ordinarily extinguishes the interest of the person holding under him. In the case of a valid sub-lease existing at the time of surrender, Section 47(4) preserves the sub-tenant's rights only for the remainder of the sub-lease or five years, whichever is shorter. The protected status therefore does not continue beyond that period. Once the statutory period expired, the defendant's possession was no longer referable to any subsisting tenancy right and was not protected by Section 175.

Conclusion: The suit was correctly maintainable under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and not under Section 175.

Issues: Whether the appellant proved entitlement to damages.

Analysis: The record did not contain cogent and satisfactory evidence to establish damages.

Conclusion: The claim for damages was rejected.

---