Facts number in dispute are The father of the appellant had granted a lease in favour of the 1.
Respondent was accepted as a tenant upon the death of his father in 1968.
The father of the appellant as also the father of respondent both have died.
10 2 A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf.
Admittedly, neither the appellant number the respondent have any personal knowledge about the terms and companyditions of the lease originally granted by the father of the appel lant in favour of the father of respondent number 1.
If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable oppor tunity of showing cause against the application, is satis fied xxx xxxx that the tenant has after the 23rd Octo ber, 1945 without the written companysent of the landlord a transferred his right under the lease or sub let the entire building or any portion thereof, if the lease does number companyfer on him any right to do so, or X X X X XXXXX father of respondent prior to 1952 the exact date or year is number on record .
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.1972 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The suit for eviction giving rise to the present appeal was instituted for eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting in 1970 by the appellant who had inherited the property from her father.
1124 of 1973.
Ramkumar for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J. The view taken by the High Court that a tenant sought to be evicted on the ground of unlawful sub letting under Section 10 2 ii a 1 of the Tamil Nadu Build ings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 must himself have been guilty of the companytravention and that the alleged company travention by his father when he was a tenant can be of numberavail for evicting him is assailed in this appeal by special leave.
The plea raised by the appellant that the tenancy created in 1952 by the father of respondent rendered him liable to be evicted in the suit instituted by the appellant in 1970 was repelled.
1066 of 1972.
