S. N. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) -CIVIL Revision Applications Nos. 392 of 1966 and 371 of 1966 have been referred to the Division Bench. The same question is involved in both the Revisions and therefore they are heard together. ( 2 ) CIVIL Revision Application No. 371 of 1966 came up for hearing before our learned brother Vakil J. Vakil J. held that there was no bar of res judicata. The suit was brought by the landlord for possession of leased premises on the ground that tenancy was terminated as the tenant had sublet the premises before 1-1-1964. The Saurashtra Rent Control Act was in force at the time of subletting however the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Gujarat Extension Amendment Act 1963 Act No. 57 of 1963) came into force on 1-1-1964. By the said Act the Saurashtra Rent Control Act5 1951 (Saurashtra Act XXII of 1951) was repealed. The Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 with amendments was applied to the Saurashtra area. The contractual tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 13th July 1964. The suit was filed on 19th September 1964. Vakil J. considered the question as to whether the landlord was entitled to file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting where subletting took place before 1-1-64 after the Saurashtra Rent Control Act was repealed and the Bombay Rent Act 1947 with amendments came into force in Saurashtra area. He was of the opinion that the landlord was entitled to file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting before 1-1-1964 after the Saurashtra Rent Control Act was repealed as the right to obtain possession of the landlord was saved under sec. 51 of the Bombay Rent Act. The said sec. 51 was added in the Bombay Rent Act by Act No. 57 of 1963 and the said section provided for repealing of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act and also provided for certain savings. 51 of the Bombay Rent Act. The said sec. 51 was added in the Bombay Rent Act by Act No. 57 of 1963 and the said section provided for repealing of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act and also provided for certain savings. However our learned brother V. R. Shah J. has taken a different view in Civil Revision Application No. 72 of 1967 (Kanji Bhimji v. Purshottam Girdhar) decided on 12 August 1969 In the said Revision Application V. R. Shah J. has held that where subletting took place before 1-1-1964 and no notice was served terminating the tenancy before 1-1-64 the landlord has not acquired any right to file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting and therefore no suit is maintainable on the ground of subletting before 1-1-1964 after the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 with amendments was applied to the Saurashtra area. Vakil J. did not agree to the view taken by V. R. Shah J. and therefore he referred the following question to the Division Bench:-WHETHER the landlord is entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of possession from the tenant on the ground of sub-letting under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act (57 of 1947) as applied to Gujarat State on 31st December 1963) where the subletting was made during the pendency of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act and neither the notice to terminate the contract was given nor the suit was filed before the date on which the Saurashtra Rent Control Act was repealed ? ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the question referred to the Division Bench it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of law and admitted facts In both the cases the suit premises are situated in the area where Saurashtra Rent Control Act applied before 1-1-64. Under Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 subletting was prohibited under sec. 15. Under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Act the landlord was entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court was satisfied that after coming into operation of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act the tenant had sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein. 15. Under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Act the landlord was entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court was satisfied that after coming into operation of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act the tenant had sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein. After formation of the State of Gujarat Saurashtra Rent Act 1951 was continued in force in the Saurashtra area of the Gujarat State and the Bombay Rent Act 1947 continued to apply to that area of the Gujarat State which formed part of the old Bombay State. By Act No. 57 of 1963 the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (Gujarat Extension Amendment Act 1963 1947 with certain amendments was applied to the Saurashtra area. By sec. 4 of the Act No. S7 of 1947 sec. 3 of the Principal Act was amended. By the said amendment of sec. 3 it is provided that in the areas to which the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 is extended the said Act shall come into force on the date on which The amending Act No. 57 of 1963 came into force. Amending Act came into force on 1-1-1964. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 15 of the Bombay Rent Act 1947 was also amended by sec. 14 of the Amending Act. The amended sub-sec. (2) of sec. 15 provides that subletting validated by Ordinance No. 3 of 1959 shall have effect only in the area in which the Bombay Rent Act applied before 1 and it shall not apply to the area in which the Bombay Rent Act was not in force before 1-1-64. By sec. 21 of the Amending Act sec. 51 is added to the Bombay Rent Act 1947 Sec. 51 provides for repeal of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act and the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 as extended to the Kutch area of the State of Gujarat by the Government of India. Ministry of States Notification No. 215 J dated the 9th September 1951. The proviso to sec. Ministry of States Notification No. 215 J dated the 9th September 1951. The proviso to sec. 51 reads as follows:- (1) Such repeal shall not (i) affect the previous operation of any law so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; (ii) affect any right privilege obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred under any law so repealed; (iii) affect any penalty forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law so repealed; or (iv) affect any investigation legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right privilege obligation liability penalty forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and (2) any such investigation legal proceeding or remedy may be continued instituted or enforced and any such penalty forfeiture and punishment may be imposed as if the aforesaid law had not been repealed. It further provides that subject to the preceding proviso anything done or any action taken under any such law including any notification order notice or receipt issued or agreement made shall be deemed to have been done taken issued or made under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. The effect of the amended Act is that the Bombay Rent Act amended by Act No. 57 of 1963 is applied to the Saurashtra area from 1-1-64. The bar against subletting assigning or transferring premises contained in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 shall be deemed not to have had any effect before commencement of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1959 (Bom. Ord. III of 1959) in any area in which the Bombay Rent Act was in operation before 1-1-64. In other words sub-tenancy which was validated in the Bombay area remained unaffected. However the subletting which was illegal under the Saurashtra Rent Act was not affected even after the Bombay Rent Act came into force on 1-1-64. ( 4 ) SEC. 51 provides for repealing and saving. Sub-clause (ii) of clause 1 of the proviso to sec. 51 provides that the repeal of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 shall not affect any right privilege obligation liability acquired or accrued or incurred under any law so repealed. ( 4 ) SEC. 51 provides for repealing and saving. Sub-clause (ii) of clause 1 of the proviso to sec. 51 provides that the repeal of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 shall not affect any right privilege obligation liability acquired or accrued or incurred under any law so repealed. Sub clause (iv) of clause 1 provides that the repeal shall not affect any investigation legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right privilege obligation liability penalty forfeiture or punishment. Clause (2) provides that any such investigation legal proceeding or remedy may be continued instituted or enforced and any such penalty forfeiture and punishment may be imposed as if the aforesaid law had not been repealed. There is proviso to the aforesaid proviso. But in the second proviso it is provided that second proviso was subject to the provisions of the first proviso. Therefore the first proviso prevails over the second proviso From the above provisions of sec. 51 it is clear that for all the rights and liabilities of the parties before 1-1-64 the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Act are to be deemed to be in force and the legal proceedings and remedy in respect of the said rights and liabilities may be continued instituted or enforced as if the Saurashtra Rent Control Act had not been repealed. From the above provisions of the proviso to sec. 51 it is clear that repeal of Saurashtra Rent Act does not affect any right privilege obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred under the Saurashtra Rent Control Act before it was repealed on 31-12-63. The repeal also does not affect the legal proceeding or remedy in respect of the said matters. The proviso further provides that legal proceedings or remedy in respect of the said matters may be continued enforced or instituted as if the Saurashtra Rent Control Act had not been repealed. ( 5 ) WHEN the Saurashtra Act was repealed by Act No. 57 of 1963 sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act would have applied if there was no saving provision like sec. 51 of the Rent Act. ( 5 ) WHEN the Saurashtra Act was repealed by Act No. 57 of 1963 sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act would have applied if there was no saving provision like sec. 51 of the Rent Act. Sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act reads as follows:-WHERE this Act or any Bombay Act or Gujarat Act made after the Commencement of this Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made than unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not. . . . . Now the provisions of sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act are to be applied when an Act is repealed if a different intention does not appear from the repealing Act. In Act No. 57 of 3963 by sec. 21 sec. 51 is added in the Bombay Act. The said section provides for repealing of the Saurashtra Act. From the proviso to sec. 51 it is clear that the intention of the Legislature is very clear that the rights and liabilities are to be governed by the said proviso and not by sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. ( 6 ) OUR learned brother V. R. Shah J. in Civil Revision Application No. 72 of 1967 first considered sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act. He referred to the opening words of sec. 13 (1) (e) since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rent Act 1947and held that those words would mean since 1-1-1964 as the Bombay Rent Act came into force in Saurashtra area on 1-1-64 and a suit could be filed for possession on the ground of subletting only if subletting was after 1-1-64 when the Bombay Rent Act 1947 as amended by Act No. 57 of 1963 came into force. However suit for possession on the ground of subletting under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act could be instituted and decided even after repeal of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act in view of the saving provisions in sec. 51 added by the amending Act 57 of 1963. With respect we do not agree that suit for possession on ground of subletting before 1 is not maintainable after the Saurashtra Rent Act is repealed and the amended Bombay Rent Act came into force on 1-1-64. 51 added by the amending Act 57 of 1963. With respect we do not agree that suit for possession on ground of subletting before 1 is not maintainable after the Saurashtra Rent Act is repealed and the amended Bombay Rent Act came into force on 1-1-64. ( 7 ) OUR learned brother V. R. Shah J. held that such a suit was not maintainable on another ground also:-SO long as a contractual tenancy subsists between the landlord and the tenant the rights and liabilities between the parties are governed by the contract between them. Apart from the contract or the general law there is no right in the plaintiff and no liability in the defendant-tenant. Particularly the right to recover possession of the premises from the tenant can be gathered from the terms of the contract between the two. It is only when the contractual tenancy is terminated in a void manner that the plaintiff would acquire a right to possession of the premises. V. R. Shah J. held that by creating sub-tenancy which was contrary to the provisions of sec. 13 (1) (e) of Saurashtra Rent Control Act no right accrued to the landlord to recover the possession of the premises from the tenant. The right to recover the possession could accrue only when the tenancy is terminated and not earlier. The learned Judge held that the effect of creating of sub-tenancy contrary to the provisions of sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act was that the protection by sec. 12 of the Saurashtra Rent Act was taken away and the landlord was entitled to file a suit for possession after terminating the Contractual tenancy. The learned Judge held that by subletting in contravention of the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Act no right accrued to the landlord and no liability was incurred by the tenant within the meaning of sub clause (ii) of clause (1) of the proviso to sec. 51. We shall proceed to examine the above objection. Sec. 12 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act did not create new right or liability as between a landlord and his tenant Sec. 12 merely protected the tenant by creating an impediment on the right of the landlord to evict the tenant. However the tenant loses the protection of sec. 12 when he does any of the acts mentioned in sec. 13. However the tenant loses the protection of sec. 12 when he does any of the acts mentioned in sec. 13. The landlord can file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act after terminating the contractual tenancy. Sec. 12 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act protected the possession of the tenant and created impediment on the right of the landlord to get the possession under the General Law. However sec. 13 provides that if the tenant did any of the acts mentioned therein the impediment created under sec. 12 was lifted and the landlord was entitled to file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting after terminating the contractual tenancy. The right of the landlord under the General Law to terminate the contractual tenancy is not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act. The landlord could terminate the contractual tenancy either during the pendency of the Saurashtra Rent Act or after the amended Bombay Rent Act came into force. Sec. 15 of the Saurashtra Rent Act put a restriction on subletting by the tenant. It made illegal subletting by the tenant and the tenant became liable to be evicted under sec. 13 (1) (e ). The tenant was deprived of the protection of sec. 12 when he sublet the premises. The landlord was entitled to recover the possession as the impediment put by sec. 12 was lifted by subletting. The expression right in sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) in proviso to sec. 51 must be constructed to include the right to evict as contemplated by sec. 13 (1) (e ). Under the Amending Act 57 of 1963 the subletting in contravention of provisions of sec. 15 of the Saurashtra Rent Act is not validated. We are of the opinion that the landlord who could always put an end to the contractual tenancy without any impediment had the right to enforce the remedy of ejectment for the liability incurred by the tenant by his illegal act of subletting. With respect we are unable to agree with the view of our learned brother V. R. Shah J. In the referring judgment our learned brother Vakil J. observes that landlord has under the General Law a right to recover the possession after terminating contractual tenancy. With respect we are unable to agree with the view of our learned brother V. R. Shah J. In the referring judgment our learned brother Vakil J. observes that landlord has under the General Law a right to recover the possession after terminating contractual tenancy. Sec. 12 of the Rent Act protected the possession of the tenant. However the protection given by sec. 12 of the Rent Act was taken away if the tenant sublet the premises. When the tenant sublet premises the tenant incurred liability to be evicted and the landlord was entitled to evict the tenant under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Act. In other words the tenant incurred liability to be evicted and the landlord became entitled to get possession from the tenant. We are in agreement with above observations of our learned brother Vakil J. ( 8 ) MR. D. U. Shah appearing for the tenant in Revision Application No. 371 of 1966 and Mr. Daru appearing for the tenant in Civil Revision Application No. 392 of 1966 contended that by mere subletting no right would accrue to the landlord under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act within meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause 1 in proviso to sec. 51 unless the landlord had terminated the contractual tenancy by a valid notice. Reliance was placed on 1895 A. C. 425 (Abbott v. The Minister for Lands ). It was contended that mere right existing at the date of a repealing statute to take advantage of provisions of the statute repealed is not a right accrued within the meaning of the usual saving clause. Relying on the said decision it was contended that without some acts done by an individual no right could accrue to a party and if no further act was done no right had accrued to the landlord. This contention ingenious as it is cannot in our view be accepted as correct and 1895 A. C. 425 which has been distinguished in every subsequent case in which it has been considered can be distinguished in the present case as well. The distinction is clear. It is important to remember that the decision of the Privy Council is really a decision on the right conferred by sec. The distinction is clear. It is important to remember that the decision of the Privy Council is really a decision on the right conferred by sec. 13 of the Act of 1861 and the effect of the repeal of that section for their Lordships held that holders of fee simple grants had no special right to make conditional purchases given to them by sec. 22 and whatever right they had was to be sought for in sec. 13. In the Act of 1861 sec. 13 stands at the threshold of the sections dealing with conditional and additional conditional purchases and it is addressed to the first stage at which the statute starts by declaring every person in the world to be eligible for making applications for conditional purchases of Crown lands. Till an application under the section is made the statute does not begin to operate on Crown lands at all in the matter of their purchases by any one. It is with regard to such a section that the Privy Council said that it merely gave a right if right it was to take advantage of a statute. With regard to sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act and sec. 51 of the amended Bombay Rent Act the position is quite different. Sec. 13 (1) (e) gives a right to a landlord to obtain possession on the ground of subletting by the tenant. It is impossible to say that it is a mere right to take advantage of the statute. Observations in 1895 A. C. 425 were made in view of sec. 13 of the Act of 1861 where the statute required some initial step to be taken in order to attract it at all and but for the taking of that step one would remain outside the statute altogether. However in the present case sec. 13 (1) (e) in our view a right for possession accrued immediately. Therefore 1895 A. C. 425 has no application to the present case. ( 9 ) NEXT a decision in 1969 All England Law Reports page 121 in Ogden Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Lucas was relied upon. At page 125 it is observed Under the Act of 1958 the widow did not have to prove that she was in fact dependent on the earnings of her husband though under the Amendment Act she has to do so. At page 125 it is observed Under the Act of 1958 the widow did not have to prove that she was in fact dependent on the earnings of her husband though under the Amendment Act she has to do so. Nevertheless it is quite clear as a matter of law that no single person can say under either Act the moment before the death I shall be a person dependent at the death If I so long live. First it must be established that the death was caused or contributed to by the accident; secondly that the widow will be the deceaseds widow at the date of death and not dead or married to some other man and the children must show that they are under sixteen. None of these things can be ascertained (let alone proved until after the moment of death of the worker ). Accordingly it seems to Their Lordships that the dependants at the death cannot before the death be described as a matter of legal phraseology or with strict accuracy as a class having a contingent right to Succeed to certain benefits from the employer on the death of the injured workman. Such potential dependants have no more than a mere expectancy or as it is sometimes called a mere succession is and such a hope or expectancy gives rise to no rights in law at all. It is a mere possibility. This is well established as for example in the case of those entitled on an intestacy or what is perhaps more important in the case of those who are entitled to succeed under limitations dependent on an intestacy. In the aforesaid decision it is clear that dependents get some right on the death of the work-man. Till the workman dies the dependents have got contingent rights to succeed to certain benefits from the employer. However the above rights are no more than a mere expectancy. Obviously such contingent right could not give rise to any rights in law. The above case does not help the tenants. ( 10 ) MR. D. 1g. Shah contended that no rights were acquired in the present case as no legal proceedings were filed before the Amending Act came into force. Obviously such contingent right could not give rise to any rights in law. The above case does not help the tenants. ( 10 ) MR. D. 1g. Shah contended that no rights were acquired in the present case as no legal proceedings were filed before the Amending Act came into force. He also further submitted that rights accrued or acquired referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) to the proviso referred to only those rights in respect of which proceedings were taken and were pending in the Court on the date when the Act was repealed. There is no force in this submission of Mr. D. U. Shah. The scheme of the proviso to sec. 51 shows that the remedies are saved and also proceedings could be taken for enforcing the rights under the Saurashtra Rent Act as if the Saurashtra Rent Act was not repealed. The scheme of the proviso leaves no doubt that it is not necessary that a proceeding should be pending in respect of a right in order that right could be saved acquired or accrued within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of the proviso to sec. 51. Mr. Daru submitted that common law doctrine is that when a statute is repealed it is deleted from the statute book for all purposes except for transactions past and closed. However in order to relax the rigour of the common law doctrine sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act is enacted. Mr. Daru further submitted that clause (2) of proviso to sec. 51 of the Rent Act was similar to sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 Mr. Daru further submitted that in clause 2 of proviso to sec. 51 words were as if the aforesaid law had not been repealed and under sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 the words were as if the repealing Act had not been passed. Mr. Daru submitted that while construing clause (2) of the proviso to sec. 51 we have to bear in mind that as if the old Act has not been repealed and not that a new Act has not been passed. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 the words were as if the repealing Act had not been passed. Mr. Daru submitted that while construing clause (2) of the proviso to sec. 51 we have to bear in mind that as if the old Act has not been repealed and not that a new Act has not been passed. For all practical purposes old Act will govern the rights liabilities and remedy of the parties subject to the exception that if any provision of the new Act is to be inconsistent with old Act new Act will prevail. In the opening words of sec. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act it is made clear that unless a different intention appears from the provisions of the Act the result of the repeal will be as provided in sec. 7. Now if we refer to the first proviso to sec. 51 the intention of the legislature is very clear that the rights and liabilities of the parties which arose under the Saurashtra Rent Act 1951 before 1964 are to be governed by the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951. In the opening words also in the second proviso it is made clear that second proviso was controlled by the first proviso. Therefore from the first proviso and the second proviso it is clear that rights and liabilities of the land-lord and the tenant arising under the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act before 1-1-1964 are to be governed by the provisions of the Saurashtra Act. Thus the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 and the Bombay Rent Act as amended by Act No. 57 of 1963 operated in different fields and there is no question of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Old Act and the New Act. Mr. Daru submitted that a landlord is not entitled to file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Act. He submitted that a suit could be filed only if contractual tenancy was terminated. Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Act merely gave a ground to terminate the tenancy of the landlord. But sec. 13 (1) (e) did not give him a right to file a suit without terminating the contractual tenancy. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Act. He submitted that a suit could be filed only if contractual tenancy was terminated. Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Act merely gave a ground to terminate the tenancy of the landlord. But sec. 13 (1) (e) did not give him a right to file a suit without terminating the contractual tenancy. He submitted that right must be such that it could be enforced immediately in a Court of law without doing anything more. He submitted that existence of a right does not depend upon happening of any further event. In order to file a suit for possession on the ground of subletting the landlord was required to fulfill two conditions:- (1) that the tenant had sublet the rented premises and (2) the contractual tenancy was terminated. If the second condition is not satisfied the landlord could not file a suit and therefore subletting by a tenant could not be said to be a right accrued or acquired by the landlord. As discussed hereinbefore the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Act do not deal with the termination of the contractual tenancy. The provision for terminating the contractual tenancy is under the Transfer of Property Act a different Act. In some cases contractual tenancy might have come to end by efflux of time and a notice may not be required. A suit of the landlord for eviction may be defeated on the ground that contractual tenancy is not terminated. But from this it could not be said that no liability was incurred by a tenant within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) by subletting the rented premises and that no right was acquired by the landlord by subletting by the tenant the rented premises under the sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of the proviso to sec. 51. With respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by our learned brother V. R. Shah J. that mere subletting before serving a notice before the Saurashtra Rent Act was repealed on 1-1-64 could not be said a right accrued or acquired by the landlord. 51. With respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by our learned brother V. R. Shah J. that mere subletting before serving a notice before the Saurashtra Rent Act was repealed on 1-1-64 could not be said a right accrued or acquired by the landlord. We hold that subletting by a tenant in the Saurashtra area before 1-1-64 even though no notice is served terminating the contractual tenancy before 1-1-64 was a right accrued or acquired by the landlord and liability incurred by the tenant within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of the proviso to sec. 51 and the landlord can file a suit after 1-1-64 on the said ground for evicting the tenant on the ground of subletting. ( 11 ) WE hold that where subletting is made during the pendency of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act and neither notice to terminate the contract is given nor the suit is filed before the date on which the Saurashtra Rent Control Act was repealed the landlord is entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of possession from the tenant on the ground of subletting under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 ( 12 ) IN the question that is referred to the Division Bench in the first part in is mentioned whether the landlord was entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of possession from the tenant on the ground of subletting under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act No. 57 of 1947 as applied to the Gujarat State on 31st December 1963 We have held that a suit for possession of the rented premises on the ground of subletting when the Saurashtra Rent Act was in force could be filed under the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Act and proviso to sec. 51 has provided that rights and liabilities of the landlord and the tenant are to be decided as if the Saurashtra Rent Act had not been repealed. Answer accordingly. .