W. Broome, J.@mdashThe following question has been referred to us for decision on the initiative of D. S. Mathur, J.:--
Can the District Magistrate issue an order u/s 7 (2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in a case where the landlord has
authorised the tenant to sub-let the whole or a part of the accommodation ?
D. S. Mathur, J. pointed out that in Ram Autar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1964 All LJ 491 a learned Judge of this Court (G. C. Mathur,
J.) had held that the District Magistrate could not allot accommodation that was previously in the occupation of a sub-tenant. In his view, that
decision required re-consideration--hence the present reference.
2. Mr. Banarsi Das, appearing for the petitioner Srichand Lal, has attempted to argue that there was no proper permission in writing by the
landlord authorising the tenant in this case to sub-let, as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act; but this is a question with which we
are not at all concerned while deciding the present reference. The question referred to us for decision pre-sup-poses that the landlord has validly
authorised the tenant to sub-let; and all that we have been asked to determine is whether in such circumstances the District Magistrate has the
power to allot the sub-let accommodation under Sub-section (2) of Section 7. The point sought to be raised by Mr. Banarsi Das, therefore, cannot
be decided by us; that must be left to be determined by D. S. Mathur, J., when we have given our reply to the specific question that has been
referred to us.
3. In 1964 All LJ 491 G. C. Mathur, J. has made the following observations:--
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 do not contemplate a vacancy occurring on a sub-tenant vacating any accommodation in his occupation. To
a vacancy occurring on the vacation of an accommodation by a sub-tenant Sub-section (3) of Section 7 applies. If such a vacancy were covered
by Sub-sections (1) and (2) then there was no necessity to enact Sub-section (3) also.
.....
If Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 were applicable to an accommodation vacated by a sub-tenant, then Sub-section (3) would become
redundant as in that case the District Magistrate could allot the accommodation to any person and no question would arise under Sub-section (3)
of seeking the permission of the District Magistrate and of the landlord .....
.....
Where a sub-tenant vacates an accommodation it is open to the tenant-in-chief either to induct another sub-tenant or not to do so. If he decides on
the former course he must first obtain the permission of the landlord and of the District Magistrate to do so.
When he applies to the District Magistrate for permission, the District Magistrate may either grant the permission or refuse it, but he cannot make
an order of allotment u/s 7 (2). But if the tenant-in-chief does not desire to induct another sub-tenant he need not inform the District Magistrate and
can occupy the accommodation himself. It is unnecessary, in that case, for him to apply for release of the accommodation under Rule 6"". With
great respect to the learned Judge, we feel constrained to observe that he has built up his argument on a false premise, namely that if Sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 7 were to apply to sub-tenancies, Sub-section (3) of Section 7 would be unnecessary and redundant. Clause (3), it is to be
noted, introduces in the case of sub-tenancies an entirely fresh requirement that is not found in Clauses (1) and (2), viz. the necessity for obtaining
written permission from the landlord. And reading an the clauses harmoniously together, we see no reason to hold that Clauses (1) and (2) of the
Section do not apply to cases of sub-letting.
4. The relevant portions of the clauses in question run as follows:--
7 (1) (a) Every landlord, shall, within 7 days after an accommodation becomes vacant ..... give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District
Magistrate.
(b) Every tenant occupying accommodation shall within 7 days of vacation of such accommodation or ceasing to occupy it give notice thereof in
writing to the District Magistrate.
.....
(2) The District Magistrate may by general or special order require a landlord to let or not to let to any person any accommodation which is or has
fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant.
(3) No tenant shall sub-let any portion of the accommodation in his tenancy except with permission in writing of the landlord ana of the District
Magistrate previously obtained.
When interpreting these sub-sections, it is most important to keep in mind the Explanation appended to Section 7, which reads thus:--
Explanation: For purposes of this section the word ''let'' shall include the word ''sub-let''. Now, the place where the word ''let'' has been used in
Section 7 is in Sub-section (2), which empowers the District Magistrate to ""require a landlord to let or not to let to any person any accommodation
which is....vacant"". Applying the Explanation to this sub-section, we find that a District Magistrate can also ""require a landlord to sub-let or not to
sub-let to any person any accommodation which is vacant"".
Obviously the landlord proper cannot sub-let--sub-letting is a function that can only be performed by a tenant-in-chief. Consequently, when
interpreting Sub-section (2) in relation to sub-letting, the word ''landlord'' must be interpreted as meaning tenant-in-chief (who occupies the
position of a landlord in relation to his sub-tenant). Section 7 (2), read with the Explanation, therefore, means that in respect of sub-tenancy
accommodation the District Magistrate can require the tenant-in-chief to sub-let or not to sub-let the said accommodation, if it falls vacant.
Furthermore, to bring Sub-section (1) of Section 7 into harmony with Sub-section (2), it is necessary to interpret the word ''landlord'' in Clause (a)
and the word ''tenant'' in Clause (b) of subsection (1) as meaning, in the case of subtenancies, the tenant-in chief and the sub-tenant respectively.
5. In our view, therefore, when a subtenant vacates accommodation occupied by him he has to give notice in writing to the District Magistrate u/s 7
(1) (b), while the tenant-in-chief has to give notice to the District Magistrate u/s 7 (1) (a). And thereafter the District Magistrate, acting u/s 7 (2),
may require the tenant-in-chief to sub-let or not to sub-let the accommodation in question to any person. With due respect, therefore, we are not
prepared to agree with the view taken by G. C. Mathur, J. in Ram Autar Agarwal''s case 1964 All LJ 491, that the District Magistrate cannot
make an order of allotment u/s 7 (2) in respect of accommodation that has been vacated by a sub-tenant.
6. Accordingly we answer the question that has been referred to us in the affirmative and direct that the papers be returned with this answer, so
that the case may be disposed of, after the remaining issues have been decided.