V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision application under the Bombay Rent Act (Bombay Act No. 57 of 1947 ). The petitioner is original defendant No. 1 who was according to the plaintiff a monthly tenant of the plaintiff. On 18 July 1960 a notice was given to defendant No. 1 terminating his tenancy on the expiry of 31-7-1960. On 28th July 1960 defendant No. 1 entered into what is alleged to be a partnership deed (Ex. 34) with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for carrying on business. Both the Courts below held that the partnership deed is a sham and colourable document that it was in reality no partnership deed and there was unlawful transfer of possession of the premises. In this view both the Courts below decreed the possession to the plaintiff. Hence this revision by the original tenant. ( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding that the partnership deed is not real and genuine is not correct. It is further contended that before 31st July 1960 the tenancy did not expire and therefore the tenant could lawfully sublet the premises and could lawfully transfer the possession. Reliance is placed on sec. 15 of the Bombay Rent Act and sec. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act. Clause (e) of sec. 13 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act allows a decree for possession to he passed in favour of the landlord if the tenant has since the coming into operation of the Act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein. ( 3 ) A partnership deed is not subletting. If under the partnership deed any interest in the possession has been transferred then the question would have to be considered whether it has been done lawfully or unlawfully. As mere partnership deed does not amount to subletting the entire discussion in the judgment of the lower Court whether the partnership deed was real or genuine and whether there was subletting or not would not be very material. But the Court below have decreed the suit for possession on the ground that premises can be lawfully sublet then possession can be given lawfully. As observed above this is not a case of subletting. But the Court below have decreed the suit for possession on the ground that premises can be lawfully sublet then possession can be given lawfully. As observed above this is not a case of subletting. The learned counsel for the petition does not say that there has been subletting. The entire case has been that of a partnership deed. The learned counsel relies on sec. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act with reads as follows:108 In the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary the lessor and the lessee of immoveable property as against one another respectively possess the rights and are subject to the liabilities mentioned in the rules next following or such of them as are applicable to the property leased : (A) Rights and Liabilities of the Lessor. . . . . . . . . . . . . (j) The lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sublease the whole or any part of his interest in the property and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it. The lessee shall not by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities attaching to the lease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) THE question is whether the expression subject to any contract to the contrary in sec. 15 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act which reads as follows:notwithstanding anything in any law but subject to any contract to the contrary it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sublet the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein;can be said to be satisfied because of the provision of sec. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act. Sec. 15 makes it unlawful to sublet the whole or part of the premises or to assign or transfer in any other manner the Interest in the property. It is therefore contrary to the provisions of sec. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the expression subject to any contract to the contrary cannot be satisfied by the provisions of sec. It is therefore contrary to the provisions of sec. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the expression subject to any contract to the contrary cannot be satisfied by the provisions of sec. 108 (j) of the T. P. Act which are themselves contrary to the provisions of sec. 15 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act. That expression can be satisfied only if there is a specific contract between the parties to the contrary which is not the case here. ( 5 ) ). The proviso to sec. 15 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act reads as follows:-PROVIDED that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette permit in any area the transfer of interest in premises held under such leases or class of leases and to such extent as may be specified in the notification. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is a notification. But though he had been Riven more than a months time to produce the Gazette containing the said notification he has not been able to produce the same. There is therefore no proper evidence of the notification. Dalals Rent Act on the subject is not admissible in evidence ( 6 ) THERE is therefore no need to interfere with the orders of the lower Courts The revision application is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed. .