A. N. Ray (C. J.) ( 1 ) APPELLANT became a tenant on 1. 1. 60. A portion was sub-let by him on August, 65. Landlord gave him notice on 1. 4. 67, terminating his tenancy. The Sub-tenant vacated his portion on 14. 4. 67. Landlord then sued him for eviction. Suit was decreed. Order was upheld in appeal and in revision by High Court and in further appeal by Supreme Court. Para 10 onwards judgement is : ( 2 ) HE appellant, there after, filed a revision petition in the High Court. In the High Court the contentions were these. The expression "the tenant has sublet" In section 13 (l) (e) of the above mentioned Act means that the subletting must continue at the date of the suit for passing the decree. The notice was given on 1 April, 1967. The respondent No. 5 vacated the premises in suit on 14th April, 1967. When the suit was filed the sub-tenant was not in occupation of the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to a decree. ( 3 ) THE High Court relied on a Bench Decision of that High Court in Maganlal v. Arjan Bhanji 1968 G. L. R. 837 where it was held that the words "has sublet" in section 13 (l) (e) of the Slurashtra Rent Control Act mean that a subletting has taken place and as a result of that subletting the impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession has been removed. The provisions contained in section 13 (l) (e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act are similar to the provisions contained in the Bombay Act, 1947. The High Court also held that the words "has sublet" do not include any element of the sub-tenancy being in existence at the date when the suit is filed. ( 4 ) THE appellant relied on a decision of this Court in Goppulal v. Thakarji 1969 (3) S. C. R. 989, in support of the proposition that the words "has sublet" mean that the subletting is to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court in Goppulal s case (supra) considered section 13 (l) (e) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. This Court in Goppulal s case (supra) considered section 13 (l) (e) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Section 13 (l) (e) of the Rajasthan Act provides that no decree evicting the tenant shall be passed unless the Court is satisfied " (e) that the tenant has assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises, without the permission of the landlord. " ( 5 ) THE High Court in Goppulal1 s case (supra) held that two shops were sublet after October 15, 1947 when the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, came into force. Subletting was a ground for ejectment under paragraph 8 (l) (b) (ii) of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947. The High Court held that the tenant s liability for eviction on this ground continued after the promulgation of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. ( 6 ) THIS Court said that the High Court was in error that there was one integrated tenancy" for six shops The facts found were that four shops were let out in . 944 and two shops were let out after 1945. This Court found that the High Court was In error in holding that two shops were sublet after 15 October, 1947. ( 7 ) THIS Court held that the plaintiffs in Goppulal s case (supra) did not establish that the subletting was after 15 October, 1947 and on the date of the subletting in 1944. no Rent Control Legisation was in force. It is in that context that it is said that the words, "has sublet" contemplate a completed event connected in some way with the present time " This Court said that the words "has sublet" take within their sweep any subletting which was made in the past and has continued up to the present time. " What is meant by these observations is that the vice of subletting which fell within the mischief of the Act continues to be a mischief within the Act. In Goppulal s case (supra) there was no subletting io 1947 to violate the 1947 Jaipur Rent Control Order and therefore, there could not be any subletting which could continue up to the 1950 Rajasthan Act. In Goppulal s case (supra) there was no subletting io 1947 to violate the 1947 Jaipur Rent Control Order and therefore, there could not be any subletting which could continue up to the 1950 Rajasthan Act. ( 8 ) ON the date of the subletting in 1944, this Court found in Goppulal s case (supra) that there was no Rent Control Legislation in force. This Court did not consider the question as to whether subletting to be within the mischief of the relevant statute was to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court held that section 13 (1) (e) of the Rajasthan Act would include any subletting which though made in the past would continue at the point of the time when the Act came into force. ( 8 ) THE appellant repeated the same contentions which had been advanced before the High Court. The provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 indicate that a tenant is disentitled to any protection under the Act if he is within the mischief of the provisions of section 13 (l) (e), namely, that he has sublet. The language is that if the tenant has sublet, the protection ceases. To accede to the contention of the appellant would mean that a tenant would not be within the mischief of unlawful subletting if after the landlord gives a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground of unlawful subletting the sub-tenant vacates, the landlord will not be able to get any relief against the tenant in spite of unlawful subletting, in that way the tenant can foil the attempt of landlord to obtain possession of the premises on the ground of subletting every time by getting the subtenant to vacace. Tenant s liattility to eviction arises ooce unlawful Sub-letting is proved. At the date of notice, if it is proved that there was unlawful Sub-letting, tenant is liable to be evicted. High Court rightly rejected revision.