( 1 ) THIS revision petition comes up before us on a reference made by datar, J. , under the proviso to Sec. 8 (2) of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961. The question involved in this case turns on the interpretation of Ss. 61 and 62 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act ). The facts of the case, in outline are these : k. A. Raghuveer, the petitioner before us, is the owner of a site bearing cs. No. 37b situate at Bagalkot. It was leased to S. R. Kaladgi, respodent 1. This respondent has sublet different portions of the site to respondents 2 and 3 who have constructed certain buildings on the site at their own cost and the petitioner admittedly has no right over these buildings. ( 2 ) THE petitioner complaining that respondent 1 has sublet the leased premises filed a civil suit for possession before the Court of the Munsiff, bagalkot. The suit was also based on some other grounds with which we are not concerned in this petition. The suit was filed on 16-11-1961, when the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, was in force. During the pendency of the suit, the Bombay Rent Control Act was repealed by the enactment of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, which came into force on 31-12-1961. ( 3 ) THE trial Court, by its judgment dt. 26-11-1962, held that by virtue of s. 61 of the Act, respondents 2 and 3 are protected from eviction and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to possession. It however decreed the suit for rent directing respondents 2 and 3 to pay their rents directly to the petitioner. In other words, the Court held that though respondents 2 and 3 were sub-tenants under respondent 1, they shall be deemed to be the tenants directly under the landlord. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT 1 to the extent he was aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred an appeal and there were cross-objections by the petitioner and other respondents before the District Judge, Bijapur, who transferred the same to the Civil Judge, Bijapur for disposal. The latter allowed the appeal holding that the sub-tenants must pay their rents to the tenant (respondent 1) and not directly to the petitioner-landlord. He dismissed the cross-objections. ( 5 ) AGAINST the said decision, the petitioner preferred CRP. No. 1510 of 1968 in this Court. The latter allowed the appeal holding that the sub-tenants must pay their rents to the tenant (respondent 1) and not directly to the petitioner-landlord. He dismissed the cross-objections. ( 5 ) AGAINST the said decision, the petitioner preferred CRP. No. 1510 of 1968 in this Court. Malimath, J. , while allowing the petition held that since the suit was instituted before the Act came into force, the appeal lay only before the Court of the District Judge under S. 29 of the Bombay rent Control Act. Consequently, he set aside the appellate order of the Civil Judge with a direction to the District Judge to restore the appeal on his file and dispose of the same as per law. Purusant thereto, the Addl. District Judge, Bijapur, heard the appeal and the cross-objections The learned Judge has allowed the appeal in part, while dismissing the cross-objections. He has set aside the direction given by the trial court that respondents 2 and 3 should pay their rents to the petitioner in other respects he affirmed the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit for possession. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the landlord has preferred this revision petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. K. I. Bhatta, Counsel for the petitioner contended thus; by S. 15 of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, the sub-letting of any premises was prohibited. Under the said Act, sub-letting was a ground for eviction. On that ground, the petitioner as the landlord had a right to evict his tenant. So, he instituted the suit for eviction on 16-11-1961. It was before the Bombay Rent Control Act was repealed by the Act. ( 7 ) THE petitioner's right to obtain possession is saved by the repeal and saving provisions under S. 62 of the Act. S. 61, must therefore, be construed as to save that right of the landlord in a pending proceeding under the repealed bombay Rent Control Act. He also relied on the recent decision of this Court in Ramachandra Hanmant Devadas v. Gopala Rao Ramarao, (1973) 1 Mys. L. J. 158. . We shall first refer to the decision relied upon by the Counsel. It was a case in which a sub-tenant who came into possession of certain premises before the Act came into force, contended that by virtue of Ss. L. J. 158. . We shall first refer to the decision relied upon by the Counsel. It was a case in which a sub-tenant who came into possession of certain premises before the Act came into force, contended that by virtue of Ss. 61 and 62 of the Act, he must be deemed to have acquired the position of a tenant directly under the plaintiffs. Narayana Pai, CJ. , repelling that contention held that Ss. 22 and 61 of the Act make it clear that a sub-tenant would be a deemed tenant only where the interest of the main tenant is determined after the coming into force of the Mysore Rent Control Act and not in respect of those whose tenancy was determined before the Act came into force. ( 8 ) THIS case has no application to the question of law urged by Counsel. In the present case also, the learned District Judge has held that respondents 2 and 3 cannot be asked to pay rents directly to the petitioner -landlord but that they must pay it only to respondent 1, the tenant. The view taken by the learned District Judge, in our opinion, is in accordance with the above statement of law laid down in Ramachandra's case (1 ). The contention that the right of the petitioner to obtain possession of the premises from the tenant for having sublet the premises was saved by the repealing Act requires a close scrutiny of the following provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act. S. 15 of the Bombay Rent Control Act provides;" 15. 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. "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. "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. " ( 9 ) IT is therefore seen that under the Bombay Rent Control Act, there was a bar against subletting, assignment or transfer of the premises and that subletting was one of the grounds for evicting the tenant. When respondent 1 sublet the premises, the petitioner got a right to possession under the Bombay Rent Control Act after determining his lease in accordance with law. The right to possession must be distinguished from the right to recover possession. The right to possession arises when the tenancy is determined and the right to recover possession follows the right to possession. The right to recover possession could be enforced only through the process of the Court if the tenant refuses to deliver possession of the premises (See Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin v. Dave bhagwatprasad Prabnuprasad , AIR. 1963 SC. 120. ( 10 ) WE can, therefore, say that the petitioner had the right to possession under the Bombay Rent Control Act. That right in the absence of any othe provision could be said to have been saved by the proviso S. 62 of the Act when it repealed the Bombay Rent Control Act. Proviso to section 62 of the Act reads as follows :"62. Repeal and Savings-The Bombay Rents Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII of 1947), as in force in the Bombay area. . . . . . ; are hereby repealed: provided that the provisions of section 6 of the Mysore General clauses Act, 1899 shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactments and sections 8 and 24 of the said Act shall be applicable as if the said enactments were permanent Mysore Acts, and had been repealed and re-enacted by this Act. " ( 11 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to see S. 61 of the Act. It provides :" 61. Bar against sub-letting, etc. " ( 11 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to see S. 61 of the Act. It provides :" 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 or assignment or transfer of premises contained in S. 15 of the Bombay rents Hotels 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 have continued in possession at such commencement, have no effect and be deemed never to have had any effect. " ( 12 ) THE general rule is that provisions of a statute which are silent in regard to their operation are to be taken as prima facie clearly indicating prospective operation, because, the very intent of the rule of interpretation is to prevent interference with the rights of parties etc. , except in cases where the unmistakable language of the legislature demands a retrospective construction. But if the legislature expressly declares one particular section of the Act to be retrospective in its operation, the court has no alterative but to give effect to the intention of the legislature, even though the consequences may appear to be unjust and hard. ( 13 ) THE intention of the legislature is clear and unequivocal by the plainlanguage of S. 61. The section removes the bar against subletting, assignment or transfer of premises contained in S. 15 of the Bombay Rent control Act as in force in the Bombay Area, in respect of the persons who entered into possession despite the said bar and continued to be in possession on the date of the commecement of the Act. The section declares that such a bar has no effect at all and should be deemed never to have had any effect. The operation of the section by the language employed is clearly intended to be retrospective, extinguishing the right of a landlord to evict his tenant or sub-tenant solely on 'the ground of subletting. This is further made clear by the provisions of clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. The operation of the section by the language employed is clearly intended to be retrospective, extinguishing the right of a landlord to evict his tenant or sub-tenant solely on 'the ground of subletting. This is further made clear by the provisions of clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. Though unlawful subletting is a ground for eviction under that clause, it excepts subletting, assignment or transfer to which the provisions of. Section 61 are applicable. Our view finds full support from the decision in Vishram Krishna anvekar v. Venkatesh Vithalrao. Kamath (3), wherein Narayana Pai, J. , (as he then was) said :"it would follow therefore that in the matter covered by S. 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 S. 15 of the Bombay Act was made unavailable as a ground for eviction under S. 13 (1) (e) of the said Act. S. 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 S. 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 Sec. 15 of the Bombay Act, was removed from the category of unlawful sub-tenancy furnishing sufficient ground for eviction. " ( 14 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 despite the bar against subletting provided under S. 15 of the Bombay Rent Control Act, have coma into possession, of the premises and continued to be in possession till the Act came into force. The bar of subletting, therefore, cannot be made a ground for eviction by the petitioner. The view taken by the learned District Judge is therefore correct and does not call for any interference. In the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed but without costs. --- *** --- .