( 1 ) THE petitioner was the third defendant in Long Cause Civil Suit No. 93 of 1957 before the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hubli, filed by the first respondent and another as plaintiffs. The said proceedings were proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging houses Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act) for evicting three defendants, including the petitioner, from premises bearing CTS. Nos. 2659, 2660 and 2669 of Hubli. The case of the plaintiff was that the first two premises had been let out on a monthly rent of ten rupees to defendants 1 and 2 on 10-12-1945, that the third mentioned premises, together with a tin shed thereon, were let out to defendants 1 and 2 at six rupees a month on 18-2-J946, that the said two defendants sub-let the premises to the third defendant, that the first two defendants had kept rents in arrears for a period exceeding six months, that on the strength of the said default the plaintiff had, by notice dated the 7th of May 1956, validly terminated the tenancy of defendants 1 and 2. It is also pleaded that the sub-letting was opposed to S. 15 of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore, furnished an additional ground for eviction under S. 13 of the said Act. The first two defendants pleaded that they had given up the premises in the year 1949 and that thereafter the plaintiff had entered into a direct contract of lease with the third defendant. ( 2 ) THE trial Court held that the first two defendants continued to be tenants, that the third defendant was a sub-tenant let into possession by them, that the defendants 1 and 2 had admittedly kept in arrears rent for period exceeding six months and that therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to an order of eviction; such an order was made. Upon the appeal by the third defendant, the District Court at Dharwar in CA. No. 283/1961 has confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. ( 3 ) SO far as the defendants 1 and 2 continuing to be tenants and the third defendant being let into possession as a sub-tenant are concerned, they are findings of fact recorded concurrently by both the Courts below. No. 283/1961 has confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. ( 3 ) SO far as the defendants 1 and 2 continuing to be tenants and the third defendant being let into possession as a sub-tenant are concerned, they are findings of fact recorded concurrently by both the Courts below. The non-payment of rent for a period of more than six months is also an admission by the first two defendants. The finding involves a finding that the defendants 1 and 2 continued to be tenants until the tenancy was terminated by notice issued by the plaintiff in May 1956. ( 4 ) IT is also found recorded in the judgment of the lower appellate court that the third defendant did not question the finding of the trial court that he was a sub-tenant. ( 5 ) ON these findings, the question of law raised by Mr. Krishna murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that by virtue of Ss. 61 and 22 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, which came into force in the year 1961, he must be deemed to have acquired the position of a tenant directly under the plaintiffs. The said two sections read as follows:" 61. Bar against sub-letting, etc. , never to have had effect in certain cases. 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, Hotels and Lodging Houses Raites 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 continue in possession at such commencement, have no efeedt and be deemed never to have had any effect. . . 22. Sub-tenant to become tenant on determination of tenancy. . . 22. Sub-tenant to become tenant on determination of tenancy. 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 sub-let 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. " ( 6 ) FOR appreciating fully the argument as well as the Legislative intent behind S. 61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, it is necessary to state that S. 15 of the Bombay Kent Act provided that" Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act 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. " and clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 13 of the same Act enumerated the following as one of the grounds for eviction namely, " that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this Act, sub-let the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in, any other manner his interest therein" ( 7 ) UNDER the Mysore Rent Control Act the provision enumerating sub-letting as one of the grounds for eviction is clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21, which reads as follows :" (f ). that the tenant hae 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. " ( 8 ) IF one remembers that under the several Acts enumerated in the repealing S. 62 of the Rent Control Act, 1961, sub-letting was a ground for eviction only in certain specified circumstances such as absence of written consent of the landlord, as against which, the Bombay Rent Act made subletting simpliciter unlawful and one of the grounds for eviction, it will become clear why special provision is made in that regard in S. 61 of the mysore Rent Control Act and why clause (f) of S. 21 (1) of the said Act makes sub-letting prior to its commencement a ground for eviction only if the same had been made contrary to any provision of law then in force. ( 9 ) SO far as S. 22 is concerned, the very language of it makes it clear that the sub-tenant would be deemed to be a tenant only where the interest of the main tenant is determined after the coming into force of the mysore Rent Control Act For one thing the normal rule of interpretation requires a clear indication of an intention to give retrospective operation before any provision of statute is given such an operation secondly the use of the present tense while referring to the determination of the interest of the main tenant excludes the possibility of applying the deeming provision in the latter part of S. 22 to a case where the main tenant's interest had been determined or had come to an end before coming into ferce of the Mysore Rent Control Act ( 10 ) THE same conclusion is also reached if regard be had for the repealing and saving S. 62 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. The said section while repealing various statutes including the Bombay Rent Act states in its proviso that the provisions of S 6 of the Mvsore General Clauses act shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactments. ( 11 ) APART from the fact that the express language of S 6 of the generaj Clauses Act keeps alive not only the rights and liabilities acquired under the repealed statute but also the remedies available in respect thereof , the ruling of the Supreme Court in Channiah v. M/s. A. Batchmiah sahib and Co. , Rev, Pet. Nos. ( 11 ) APART from the fact that the express language of S 6 of the generaj Clauses Act keeps alive not only the rights and liabilities acquired under the repealed statute but also the remedies available in respect thereof , the ruling of the Supreme Court in Channiah v. M/s. A. Batchmiah sahib and Co. , Rev, Pet. Nos. 42 and 43 of 1962 and Haji Mohd Ismail Saheb v Haji Abdul Latif Tauub, Rev, Pet. Nos. 42 and 43 of 1962 referred to in G. Jayamma v. G. Kanniah Prasad, 1970 2 Mys. L. J 219, @ 22. dealing with the same section of the Mysore Rent Control Act, has pointed out that the last nine words 'as if the repealing Act had not been passed', occurring in S. 6 of the General Clauses Act are the kev words and they onlv mean that in respect of rights, obligations, or liabilities, acquired, accrued or incurred under the earlier Act, the repealing Act need not be read and legnl proceedings and remedies are to continue under the repealed Act according to its tenor. ( 12 ) WHICHEVER way one looks at the matter either as one involving merely interpretation of Ss. 22 and 61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act or as involving the effect of the proviso to S. 62 of the Act, it is impossible to accept the argument on behalf of the petitioner that he Should be regarded as a tenant directly under the plaintiff notwithstanding the termination of the tenancy of his head lessees defendants 1 and 2. The normal operation of the law of transfer of property is also that When the interest of the lessor comes to an end the interest of the lessee which is co-terminua with that of the lessor must also come to an end. ( 13 ) WE hold, therefore, that it is not possible for the third defendant-petitioner to contend that he has acquired by any means known to law the character of a tenant directly under the plaintiff in this case hence, he cannot claim the benefit of any of the special provisions of the bombay Rent Act. ( 14 ) FOR these reasons, the conclusions concurrently arrived at by the courts below are hereby affirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ( 14 ) FOR these reasons, the conclusions concurrently arrived at by the courts below are hereby affirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ( 15 ) AS the petitioner is conducting an Automobile Workshop in the premises he is given time till the 30th of June 1973 to vacate. --- *** --- .