JUDGMENT W. Broome, J. - The 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. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in a case where the landlord has Authorized 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 (1) (1964 AWR 260) a learned Judge of this Court (G.C. Mathur) had held that the D.M. 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 authorizing the tenant in this case to sub-let, as required by the 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 supposes that the landlord has validity authorized the tenant to sub let; and all that we have been asked to determine is whether in such circumstances the D.M. has the power to allot the sublet accommodation under Sub-section (2) of Section 7. The point sought to be raised by Mr. Banarsi Das, therefore, cannot be decided by us but 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 Ram Autar Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1) 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 here was no necessity to enact Sub-section (sic) also..... 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 here was no necessity to enact Sub-section (sic) also..... If Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 were applicable to ah accommodation vacated by a subtenant, then Sub-section (3) Would become redundant as in that case the D.M. could allot the accommodation to any person and no question would arise under Sub-section (3) of seeking the permission of the D.M. 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 D.M. to do so. When he applies to the D.M. for permission, the D.M. 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 subtenant he need not inform the D.M. 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 all the clauses harmoniously together, we see no reason to hold that Clauses (1) and (2) of the section do not apply to case 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. (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 port ion of the accommodation in his tenancy except with permission in writing of the landlord and of the D.M. previously obtained. When interpreting these subsections, 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 'sublet'. Now, the place where the word 'let' has been used in Section 7 is in Sub-section (2), which empowers the D.M. to 'require a landlord to let or not to let to any person any accommodation which is.... vacant". Applying the Explanation to this subsection, 'we find that a D.M. 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 D.M. can require the tenant in chief to sublet or not to sublet 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 Sub-section (1) as meaning, in the case of sub tenancies, the tenant in chief and the sub tenant respectively. 5. In our view, therefore, when a sub-tenant vacates accommodation occupied by him he has to give notice in writing to the D.M. u/s 7(1)(b), while the tenant in chief has to give notice to the D.M. u/s 7(1)(a). 5. In our view, therefore, when a sub-tenant vacates accommodation occupied by him he has to give notice in writing to the D.M. u/s 7(1)(b), while the tenant in chief has to give notice to the D.M. u/s 7(1)(a). And thereafter the D.M, 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 (supra) that the D.M. 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.