The landlords of certain premises gave notice .to their tenants termi· c natlru! the tenancy. After the period fixed in the notice for vacating the premfses expired, the landlords filed a su:t for eviction under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in the Court of the Judge of Small-Causes. The suit was based on two grounds, namely : (i) that the rent was in arrears for six months, and (ii) that there was unlawful sub-Jetting by the ·tenants to the appellant. The tenan's contended that the rent was not in arrears ·and that there was no sub-Jetting to the ·appellant, but that he was a partner of their firm. . The D appellant's contention was that he was not a sub-tenant but the tenant of the landlords b=use of a tran.•fer by the tenants of their interest to him, and that, there were no arrears of rent. The trial Court held that. (i) there were no arrears of rent, and (ii) that the appellant was a sub-tenant, bnt that be could not be evicted because of s. 15(2) of the Act. In appeal by the landlords the appellate Court also held, ( i) that there were no arrears but (ii) that since the appellant himself denied that be was a sub· tenant he could not be held to be a sub-tenant; and, as he had failed to E p!·ove the assignment :n his favour he was a mere trespasser. It therefore ordered his eviction on the ground that the benefit of s. 15(2) was available only to a sub-tenant, The appellate Court, however, did not order the eviction of the tenaftts·in-chief. When the appellant took the matter to the H'o.h Court. in revision under s. 115, Civil Procedure Code, the High Court held, (i) that the appellate Court was not right in setting aside the finding that the app~llant was a sub·'enant, and that the find;n_g that the appellant was a sub-tenant stood unchallenged; but (ii) 'that the tenants and the F sub-tenant, namely the appellant, were liable to be evicted because the rent was in arrear.
