( 1 ) THE petitioner who was the 2nd defendant in the original Court and was impleaded as a sub-tenant under the 1st defendant, the principal tenant who was sought to be evicted by the respondents under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act. The landlords sought eviction on three grounds : (1) Default in the payment of rent; (2) bona fide personal requirement; and (3) unlawful subletting. During the pendency of the matter before the trial Court, the 1st defendant admitted default on his part in payment of rent from 6-2-1957 onwards and submitted to a decree for eviction by consent. It would appear that he actually gave up possession on 9-8-1963. Thereafter the proceedings were continued only against the 2nd defendant. The claim of bona fide requirement was held against the plaintiffs. So far as subletting was concerned, the trial Court held that in view of S. 61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 the subletting cannot be regarded as unlawful at all and that therefore the sub-tenant upon the eviction of the main tenant must be held to have become a statutory tenant for whose eviction the landlords were referred to such other separate proceedings as they may be advised to take. ( 2 ) UPON appeal by the landlords, the District Judge has held that S. 61 can be depended upon by a sub-tenant to retain possession only in cases where the main tenancy was sought to be put an end to on the ground of unlawful subletting, but that if as in this case the main tenant was evicted on the ground of default of rent and compliance with all the provisions of S. 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the sub-tenant cannot claim the right to remain in possession any longer. ( 3 ) IN this revision petition against the appellate order directing his eviction, the point strongly pressed by Mr. Guttal on behalf of the petitioner is that the lower appellate Court's view of the availability of the protection under S. 61 to him is erroneous. ( 3 ) IN this revision petition against the appellate order directing his eviction, the point strongly pressed by Mr. Guttal on behalf of the petitioner is that the lower appellate Court's view of the availability of the protection under S. 61 to him is erroneous. Now S. 61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act reads as follows :"notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of a Court or any contract, the bar against sub-letting, assignment or transfer of premises contained in S. 15 of the Bombay Rents, hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII of 1947) as in force before the commencement of this Act, or in any contract, shall, in respect of such sub-lessees, assignees or transferees as have entered into possession despite the bar before the coming into force of this Act, and as continued in possession at such commencement, have no effect and be deemed never to have had any effect. " ( 4 ) UNDER the Mysore Act, sub-letting is one of the grounds for eviction, but an exception is made in favour of sub-leases protected under S. 61 of the Act. Clause (f) of S. 21 (1) of the Mysore Act reads :"that the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein and where the sub-letting, assignment or transfer has been made before the coming into operation of this Part (except in respect of sub-letting, assignment or transfer to which the provisions of S. 61 are applicable), such sub-letting, assignment or transfer has been made contrary to any provision of law then in force; " ( 5 ) NOW these proceedings were instituted under the Bombay Rent Act. Under that Act, S. 15 corresponds to S. 23 of the Mysore Act which reads :"notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to any contrict to the contrary, it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Part, for any tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. " ( 6 ) THE unlawful letting as a ground for eviction is mentioned in S. 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act in the following terms :"that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of the Act, sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein. " ( 7 ) THE proceedings having been instituted under the Bombay Act, they have to be continued under the old Act in the light of provisions of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act because S. 62 of the Mysore Rent Control Act while repealing among others the Bombay Rent Act, contains a proviso to the effect that the repeal shall be governed by the provisions of S. 6 of the general Clauses Act. The effect of the said provision was considered by this Court in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Review Petitions 42 and 43 of 1962 in two cases (i) Arjuna Shidramasa v. Ganaptsa (1964) 2 Mys. L. J. 164. , and (ii)Bheemappa v. Nagaraj (1966) 1 Mys. L. J. 664. . The effect of the decisions is that unless a different intention appears in the repealing Act all rights and liabilities, remedies and proceedings have to be continued under the repealed Bombay act as if the Mysore Act had not been passed. The only question is whether and if so to what extent a different intention is expressed in the mysore Act. That matter has been referred to in the folowing terms at page 668 of the report in Bheemappa v. Nagaraj (2):"s. 21 of the Mysore Act provides for the protection of tenants against eviction. Though unlawful subletting of the whole or part of the premises is a ground for recovery of possession under clause (f), an exception consistently with S. 61, has been made to the effect that where there was subletting contrary to the provisions of the Bombay act and the sub-lessees had entered into possession, then, such subletting would not be a ground for the landlord asking for possession. Apart from this, nothing has been shown to us in S. 21 of the Mysore act which can be said to amount to a different intention for the purposes of S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899. Apart from this, nothing has been shown to us in S. 21 of the Mysore act which can be said to amount to a different intention for the purposes of S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899. '" ( 8 ) IT would follow therefore that in the matter covered by section 61 and clause 21 (f) a different intention is expressed in the Mysore Act to the effect that although proceedings under the Bombay Act may continue and all rights and liabilities acquired thereunder be enforced as if the Mysore act has not been passed, a subletting which was declared unlawful under section 15 of the Bombay Act was made unavailable as a ground for eviction under section 13 (1) (e) of the said Act. Section 61 of the Mysore Act clearly declares that in the case of sub-lessees who had entered into possession and were in possession on the date of commencement of the Mysore act, the bar expressed in section 15 of the Bombay Act is not only not to have effect but also to be deemed to have never had any effect. If so a sub-tenancy which cannot be declared unlawful except by invoking section 15 of the Bombay Act, was removed from the category of unlawful subtenancy furnishing sufficient ground for eviction. ( 9 ) IT is therefore to be held in favour of the petitioner's case that his sub-tenancy under the 1st defendant was not available as an unlawful subtenancy for eviction under section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Act. The next question is what is the effect of this protection? According to mr. Guttal, he is entitled to be regarded as having become a tenant directly under the landlord upon the eviction of 1st defendant under the provisions of section 22 of the Mysore Rent Control Act which reads:"where the interest of a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof has been lawfully sublet before the coming into operation of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued. " ( 10 ) THE section is pan materia with section 15 of the Bombay Act which is interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal v. Kasturabhai air. 1967 SC. 1853. Their Lordships point out that termination of the tenancy for purposes of the section takes place not upon termination of the contractual tenancy by notice or otherwise but when the rights of the contractual tenant are completely put an end to either by an order of eviction made by a competent court or by the tenant himself giving up his tenancy. In this case, therefore, the petitioner must be held to have become a tenant on 9-8-1963. ( 11 ) ON this footing Mr. Guttal argues that he cannot be evicted except by taking proceedings under the Bombay Act. The proposition put in such categorical terms appears to be difficult of complete formulation. If the bombay Act has to be given full effect except to the extent of the contrary intention expressed in the Mysore Act, then Mr. Guttal has to depend upon the provisions of section 14 of the Bombay Act. Section 14 of the Bombay act will enable his client to become a tenant only if he proves that he had been lawfully let into possession as a sub-tenant before the commencement of the Bombay Act. That is not the case here. That is the reason why he is obliged to depend upon section 22 of the Mysore Act and contend that the protection given under section 61 of the Mysore Act would be meaningless unless the principle of section 22 is also annexed thereto. If he wishes to depend upon the provision of the Mysore Act for retaining possession, then naturally he has got to comply with the other provisions of the Mysore act also, namely to pay the rent regularly. An affidavit filed by one of the respondents for vacating the stay order obtained by the petitioner or in the alternative for an early hearing of this case, has expressly stated that the petitioner has not paid anv rent, which statement has not been controverted by the petitioner. If therefore he became a tenant on 9-8-1963, he has been a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent right from 9-8-1963 and continues to be so even today. If therefore he became a tenant on 9-8-1963, he has been a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent right from 9-8-1963 and continues to be so even today. With a view to get rid of the conse- quences of non-payment of rent or at anv rate to postpone the evil day, the argument of Mr. Guttal is. let the landlord now issue a notice to him in compliance with section 12 of the Bombay Bent Act and then proceed to enforce his right for eviction. If. however, Mr. Guttal cannot make out his case completelv without depending upon section 22 of the Mysore Act, he cannot be permitted to even prosecute this revision petition without paying rents as required bv section 29 of the Mysore Act. ( 12 ) HENCE although there is some considerable strength in the legal position contended for by Mr. Guttal, the circumstances mentioned above, namely. that the petitioner has not paid any rent from 9-8-1963 on which date, according to his case he became the tenant, furnishes verv strong ground why I should not interfere in revision under section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure which is the only section under which he can invoke the jurisdiction of this court in matters arising under the Bombay act. I therefore decline to interfere and dismiss this revision petition. --- *** --- .