JUDGMENT N. U. Beg, A.C.J. - This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by Capt. Parmatma Saran Bhargava (Plaintiff) against Sri Hardwari Lall and Sri Kishan Lal (defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively). The suit was filed on the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute and defendant No. 1 had been occupying it as his tenant at a rental of Rs. 20/- per month. The plaintiff complained that defendant No. 1 had sublet a part of the tenement in dispute to defendant No. 2 without his consent and permission, that the plaintiff came to know of it in Nov. 1962, and that the act of subletting by the defendant made him liable to ejectment under Sec. 14(e) of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Both the defendants contested the suit. They filed a joint written statement. They denied that defendant No. 1 had sublet any part of the premises, in dispute to defendant No. 2. In any case according to the version defendant No. 2 had been living in a portion of the accommodation since 1947, and, even if subletting was proved, it commenced prior to the enforcement of the and would, therefore, not be effected by the provisions of the said Act. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment as well as arrears of rent. Dissatisfied with the said defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal. The only point urged at the stage of appeal was that the accommodation having been sublet prior to the 28th of February, 1952, the date on which the Act came into force, and the provisions of the Act not being Prospective, the defendants did not become liable to ejectment as a suit of the said transaction of subletting. The lower court rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with its judgment, the present second appeal been has been filed in the High Court by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf has reiterated the same contention before me. 3. The lower court rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with its judgment, the present second appeal been has been filed in the High Court by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf has reiterated the same contention before me. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited a number of cases laying down the rule of interpretation that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. It is not necessary for me to refer to those cases (as they ?) admits of no doubt. The question that arises in the present case is whether on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, Clause (e) of Sec. 14 should be considered to be retrospective in its operation. 4. Sec. 14 of the Act lays down certain restrictions in respect of suit for eviction of tenants from accommodation. It provides as follows: - "No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be ed in any Civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds, namely: - (e) that the tenant has sublet the whole or any portion of the accommodation without the permission of the landlord." 5. The crucial words in Cl. (e) of the above section are : "has sublet". On a plain reading of this provision of law it appears to me to be quite clear that these words would apply even to a case of subletting which has taken place prior to the coming into force of the Act, namely prior to 28th of February, 1952. In this connection it would be relevant to refer to the corresponding provision in the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this connection it would be relevant to refer to the corresponding provision in the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. They are to be found in Sec. 3(e) of he said Act and are as follows: - "Subject to any order passed under Sub-Sec. (3) no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, exception one or more of the following grounds: (e) that the tenant has on or after the 1st day of October 1946, sublet the whole or any portion of the accommodation without the permission of the landlord." ......................." 6. The difference between the phraseology used in Cl. (e) of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 and that used in Cl. (e) of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952, is significant. Clause (e) of the former Act clearly indicates that the said clause would be applicable only to a future case of subletting, that is, a transaction of subletting which has been entered into on or after the 1st day of October, 1946. On the other hand there is no such restriction contained in Cl. (e) of Sec. 14 of the latter Act. The use of the expression "has sublet" without any words restricting it to cases of future subletting necessarily results in making it applicable also to cases of subletting prior to the coming into force of the Act as well. I am, therefore, of opinion that Cl. (e) of Sec. 14 of the Act would also cover a case of subletting prior to the coming into force of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that in case the appeal is dismissed the defendants might be allowed some time to arrange for an alternative accommodation. I am of opinion that it would be reasonable to allow them three months time to make the necessary arrangement. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with the modification that a direction might be made in the decree of the Court that the order of ejectment of the defendants shall not be passed by the execution court till the expiry of a period of three months from today. The respondent will be entitled to his costs'. The stay order passed in the ease stands vacated.