The respondent alleged that the appellant sublet a portion thereof, namely, two rooms, in the month of August, 1965.
The appellant, thereafter, filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 15th February, 1974 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Appln.
The respondent on 1 April, 1967 gave a numberice to the appellant terminating the tenancy.
5 Jitendra Shankerji Desai.
The respondent No.
S. The Trial Court gave the plaintiff respondent a decree for possession of the suit premises.
When the suit was filed the sub tenant was number in occupation of the premises.
In the High Court the companytentions were these.
5 Desai vacated the suit premises on 14 April, 1967.
The expression the tenant has sublet in section 13 1 e of the above mentioned Act means that the subletting must companytinue at the date of the suit for passing the decree.
The appellant denied that there was any unlawful subletting of two rooms to respondent No.
50/ per month.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal No.
Therefore, the plaintiff respondent was number entitled to a decree.
The Trial Court held that the appellant sublet the suit premises to respondent No.
At the trial the issues were whether the appellant unlawfully sublet two rooms to respondent Desai.
S. Khanduja and R. N. Bhalgoha, for respondents 2 4.
The appellant further alleged that the respondent No.
326/71.
The appellant preferred an appeal.
The appellant filed a Revision Petition in the High Court against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge dismissing his appeal against the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises.
The appellant took on lease on 1 January, 1960 the premises, namely, first floor companysisting of four rooms at a rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 15 February, 1974 of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.
5 vacated the premises in suit on 14 April, 1967.
H. Parekh and Manju Jaitley, for the appellant.
591 of 1974.
The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for possession of the premises on the ground that the appellant had sublet a portion of the premises.
The numberice was given on 1 April, 1967.
