Pre-Act sub-tenancy protection prevents eviction, and a tenant's surrender cannot defeat a prior under-lease.

A pre-Act sub-tenancy was held outside the reach of Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, so eviction could not be sustained on that basis. The tenant's partial surrender of tenancy rights did not prejudice a prior under-lease, because a lease cannot be split to defeat the incidents of a subsisting sub-tenancy and surrender does not extinguish earlier sub-lease rights. The sub-tenant's rights were also held to survive the tenant's eviction order, as the sub-tenant retained an independent right to resist or appeal against the common decree. The statutory eviction order against the sub-tenant was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether eviction could be ordered under Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against a sub-tenant when the sub-tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the area concerned; (ii) Whether the tenant's surrender of tenancy rights in respect of part of the leased premises bound the sub-tenant and deprived him of protection against eviction; (iii) Whether the sub-tenant's rights were extinguished because the tenant suffered an eviction order.

Issue (i): Whether eviction could be ordered under Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against a sub-tenant when the sub-tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the area concerned.

Analysis: The sub-letting was admitted to have occurred long before the Act commenced in the Union Territory concerned. On that admitted position, the statutory prohibition against sub-letting under Section 13(2) could not be invoked to sustain eviction. A sub-tenancy created before the Act came into force does not attract an eviction order under that provision.

Conclusion: The eviction order under Section 13(2) was not sustainable against the sub-tenant on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant's surrender of tenancy rights in respect of part of the leased premises bound the sub-tenant and deprived him of protection against eviction.

Analysis: A lease creates an interest in property and may be determined only as a whole. The contractual and statutory incidents of lease, including the right to sub-lease under Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act and the protection afforded by Sections 111(e), 108(m) and 115 of that Act, showed that a tenant cannot validly surrender only part of the leased interest so as to prejudice a prior under-lease. A surrender of the lease does not defeat an under-lease previously granted.

Conclusion: The partial surrender did not affect the sub-tenant's rights and could not be used to evict him.

Issue (iii): Whether the sub-tenant's rights were extinguished because the tenant suffered an eviction order.

Analysis: A sub-tenant has an independent right to resist or appeal against a common eviction decree, and his rights are not automatically destroyed merely because the tenant's position is adverse. The authorities relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable, and the sub-tenant was entitled to contest the eviction independently.

Conclusion: The sub-tenant's rights were not extinguished by the tenant's eviction order.

Final Conclusion: The statutory eviction order could not be sustained against the sub-tenant, and the High Court's interference was justified. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-Act sub-tenancy cannot be evicted under Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and a tenant's surrender of the lease cannot prejudice a prior under-lease or extinguish the sub-tenant's independent rights.

---