JUDGMENT - Masodkar B.A. J.-This is the landlord's petition, whose suit was decreed by the Third Additional Small Causes Court, holding that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not in need of the suit premises and the landlord was entitled to possession because the tenant, since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, had unlawfully sublet the tenanted premises, being House No. 319, situated in Kirkee, the Cantonment Area of Poona Town. That decree was, however, set aside in appeal by the District Court, Pune, holding that the subletting was in the year 1968 and the provisions of the Act were applied to the area in the year 1969. Thus, the subletting was not unlawful. 2. That order vacating the decree by the appeal Court is challenged in the present petition. 3. The facts not in dispute and as found are that the suit premises were tenanted to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as monthly tenants. The plaintiff served the notice of termination of that tenancy on December 20, 1971, inter alias, on the ground that the tenanted premises were entirely sublet by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3. In the appeal Court, a Purshis was filed that defendant No. 3 was put in the occupation of the suit premises as a sub-tenant in 1968. The appeal Court has found that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were made applicable by a Notification to the Cantonment Area as from December 1969. Holding that as the sub-letting was in 1968, the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act were not attracted, the appeal Court vacated the trial Court's decree. 4. The narrow question is whether that order is correct. 5. It is well settled that the provisions of section 13 (1) and the different clauses furnish the grounds on the basis of which the landlord, who is otherwise not entitled to recover possession, is entitled to recover possession of the tenanted premises. As far as the subletting is concerned, clause (e) enjoins that the landlord has to satisfy the Court that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rent Act, unlawfully sublet the premises or any part thereof. As far as the subletting is concerned, clause (e) enjoins that the landlord has to satisfy the Court that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rent Act, unlawfully sublet the premises or any part thereof. The words “has sublet” are used in present perfect tense and contemplate a completed event connected in some way with the present time. A similar phrase available in section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of (Gappulal v. Shriji Dwarkadheeshji1, to convey within its meaning any subletting which was made in the past and has continued upto the present time and it did not matter that the subletting was either before or after the Act came into force. The terms of clause (e), therefore, have to be understood not only with reference to the time when the subletting began but also when the action is brought and the landlord seeks to satisfy the conditions of that clause. Upon this aspect, it is obvious that when the subletting is with regard to the tenement taken on monthly basis, it is also assumed, and as the facts indicate in the present case, that the subletting is on the same premises on monthly basis. In other words, the sub-tenancy has a tenure of a month which ends by the month and arises in his favour every month. 6. While considering the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, section 11(4)(i), which permitted the landlord to resume possession where subletting of the premises was without the consent of the landlord or in absence of right to do so under a lease deed, in the case of (K. K. Krishnan v. M. K. Vijaya Raghavan)2, the Supreme Court ruled that rights under section 103(j) of the Transfer of Property Act was no defence when the conditions of that provision were fully satisfied. It was there ruled that all the rights conferred on the landlord and tenant by sec-tion 108 and other provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have not been left intact and if a State Rent Act makes provision for eviction on certain specified grounds, eviction cannot be resisted on the basis of rights conferred b*y the Transfer of Property Act. It is, thus, obvious that what has to be satisfied by the landlord is the requirement under a particular clause on the basis of which a decree for possession is sought. 7. Now, to be the unlawful subletting, the provisions of section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act prescribe that after the coming into force of the law, but subject to any contract to the contrary, it would not be lawful for the tenant to sublet whole or any portion of the premises. Thus, the subletting of the monthly tenancy and its continuance after the coming into force of the Act would be within the mischief of section 15. There is no good reason to exclude the present subletting of the monthly tenancy only by reason that it had initially begun in 1968. It was not the case in defence in the present controversy that the subletting was continued either because of acquiescence or consent in writing of the landlord, or was permitted by any contract to the contrary. The existing subletting when the Act is applied, there being no agreement to save it, is well within the mischief of section 15(1) and if made a ground, satisfies requirements of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act. 8. This being the position of the subletting, which was continued even after the Act applied and there being no contract pleaded permitting any such subletting, the landlord had satisfied the provisions of section13(l)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. 9. The appeal Court was, therefore, not right in vacating the decree of the trial Court. 10. The impugned order made by the appeal Court, that is, the Court of the 2nd Extra Joint Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 610 of 1976 is there-fore, set aside and the decree made by the Court of the 3rd Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune, is restored. The rule is made absolute in these terms. The respondents to pay the costs of the petitioner throughout. Rule made absolute.