@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. DELAY in filing vakalat/appearance is condoned.
2. THIS appeal by the landlady arises from proceedings for eviction instituted under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", as applicable in the State of Gujarat. It relates to premises which were let out by the appellant to Respondent 1. Respondents 2 and 3 are sub-tenants in the said premises. Admittedly the subtenancy of Respondents 2 and 3 was created after 21/5/1959, the date of commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959. The eviction of Respondent 1 was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent. Respondent 1 did not avail of the protection available to him under Section 12(3 of the Act. The question is whether Respondents 2 and 3, who are sub-tenants, are entitled to claim the protection of Section 12. The High court, reversing the finding of the appellate court, has held that the respondents-sub-tenants can invoke the protection of Section 12. The appellant seeks to assail the said view of the High court. In this regard, it may be mentioned that in Section 14 of the Act it has been provided as follows:
"WHERE the interest of a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let before the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued."
3. SINCE the sub-tenancy of Respondents 2 and 3 was created subsequent to the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance of 1959, the said respondents cannot be treated as "deemed tenants" under Section 14. Their status was only that of a sub-tenant and they could not claim protection of Section 12. The said protection is available to a tenant and it could be invoked only by Respondent 1. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High court that the protection of Section 12 can be extended to Respondents 2 and 3.
4. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the High court of Gujarat dated 16/12/1980 in Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 1978 is set aside and the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge, Surat dated 20/12/1977 is restored. No order as to costs.
