different situation, namely of the tenant voluntarily undertaking to vacate the premises on the completion of 10 years. If he were to continue, it had to be on a new agreement which clause 12 contemplates. Admittedly, there was no new document. Clause 13 contemplates another contingency that if a new document is not to be executed, he will have to pay 90/- per month. This amount of 90/must be taken as merely the enhanced rent and I would hold this to be operative only so long as he continued and till he would vacate the premises. If it were to be taken as contractual tenancy then that contract allowed for right of sub-tenancy only during the period of the first 10 years. The grant of sub-lease must have been possible within the 10 years period and if such a right could still subsist, it could have been only under a new agreement which the party truly contemplated. While clause 13 provided for enhancement of rent to ` 90/-, it did not contain a clause like Clause 4 that allowed for subletting. I cannot read these clauses disjunctively. Clause 4, if it was limiting the right of a sub-lease to a period of 10 years, the liability to pay enhanced rent for a period in excess of 10 years, if no document were to be written, cannot be impressed with also a right to tenant to make a sub-lease in the extended period. If such right were to be exercised, it ought to have been through an express term in the contract. I find that there was no such express term authorizing sub-lease and the sub-lease which was created was not authorized through the document on which the tenant was making his reliance on.
