JUDGMENT : R.M. Sahai, J. In these two revisions, one filed by tenant for setting aside decree for ejectment and arrears of rent and other filed by landlord for enhancing arrears, primary controversy that arose for consideration is if the suit filed under Sub-section (2) Clause (e) of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 could be decreed even if it was found that sub-letting was done prior to commencement of the Act and was in respect of a building to which the old Rent Control Act did not apply. 2. Material allegations on which the suit was filed were that M/s. Khanna Brothers a partnership firm was tenant of premises in dispute at Rs. 400/- per month, besides water-tax, drainage-tax and electricity charges. In August 1978 its partner sub-let premises illegally without obtaining permission of the District Magistrate. And as the premises were constructed in 1967 provisions of Act XIII of 1972 were applicable, therefore, a notice of demand for arrears of rent since June 1978 and notice for termination of tenancy was served on 8th September 1978. Landlord further claimed water-tax at the rate of Rs. 6-1/4 per cent, drainage tax at Rs. 1-14 percent and electricity dues at rate of Rs. 100/-per month with effect from 9th November 1978 to 15th December 1979. In reply it was pleaded that three partners out of six of Khanna Brothers entered into partnership with two others in the name of ' Plastic Fabrication Industries' and it came into existence in January 1975 but closed in June 1977. Allegations of sub-letting were denied. Claim of water-tax and Drainage tax was also denied. Regarding electricity dues it was claimed that meter was installed and payment was regularly made on consumption recorded in the meter. Plea of res-judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was also raised, as a suit filed in 1976 for ejectment and arrears without any pleading of sub-letting was dismissed. 3. Trial Court repelled claim of res-judicata. On sub-letting it was found to have been established that as a result of partnership agreement premises were sub-let in 1975 without consent of landlord or permission of the District Magistrate. 3. Trial Court repelled claim of res-judicata. On sub-letting it was found to have been established that as a result of partnership agreement premises were sub-let in 1975 without consent of landlord or permission of the District Magistrate. In respect of electricity charges trial court held that the claim prior to 9-7-1975 was barred by time and after 9th November 1975 the charges having been paid in accordance with sub-meter the landlord was not entitled to any decree. Decree for drainage and water tax was granted as it was liable to be paid under the Act and tenant could not lead any evidence of its payment. 4. Although finding of sub-letting was challenged but it is unnecessary to examine it, as submission of Learned Counsel for tenant on the question of law appears to be well founded. On fact admitted that building was constructed in 1967 coupled with finding that premises were sub-let in 1975, the question is if the suit could be decreed u/s 20(2)(e) of the Act. For this it is necessary to extract material part of Section 20. It reads as under: Section 20(2): A suit for eviction of a tenant from a building after determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely- (e) that the tenant has sub-let in contravention of Section 25 or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building. This clause applies in two situations, one after tenant had sub-let in contravention of Section 25 or sub-letting was under the old Act of the whole or part of the building. As the building was constructed in 1967 old Act which was applicable to constructions till 1952 did not apply. What has to be seen, therefore, is if the sub-letting was in contravention of Section 25 of the Act, which reads as under: Section 25. Prohibition on sub-letting (1) No tenant shall sub-let the whole of the building under his tenancy. (2) The tenant may with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate, sub-let a part of the building. Prohibition on sub-letting (1) No tenant shall sub-let the whole of the building under his tenancy. (2) The tenant may with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate, sub-let a part of the building. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section- (i) where the tenant ceases, within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 12, to occupy the building or any part thereof he shall be deemed to have sub-let that building or part; (ii) lodging a person in a hotel or a lodging house shall not amount to sub-letting. Sub-section (1) is obviously prospective in nature. It prohibits a tenant from sub-letting whole of the building. There is nothing either in Sub-section (1) or (2) which may indicate that these provisions were to apply to sub-letting which had taken place before. However if language or the dominant intention of the Act so demands it can be construed so as to have a retrospective operation. As is clear from the section itself it does not expressly attempt to deal with past. The Act itself is not retrospective in nature. It extends to whole of the State and to every building which had completed ten years from the date its construction was completed. Section 4 prohibits a landlord or tenant from accepting any premium from tenant or sub-tenant. It obviously operates in present. Chapter III of Act is most important Chapter, It regulates letting, None of the Sections apply to past transaction. Of course about Section 12 there is divergence of opinion which shall be considered later. Chapter IV deals with eviction, release etc. Section 20 mentions various grounds for eviction of a tenant, but except second part of the Clause (e) it does not contemplate any situation in which cause of action might have accrued prior to commencement of the Act. Therefore, wherever the Act visualised that provisions of this Act may apply retrospectively, it has made specific provisions for it. The language also indicates that provision is not retrospective. The use of present tense is usually indicative of its prospectively. Section 25 satisfies this test in full. But even then a provision may be held to be retrospective if it was enacted to cure some malady, and then of course history becomes important. The language also indicates that provision is not retrospective. The use of present tense is usually indicative of its prospectively. Section 25 satisfies this test in full. But even then a provision may be held to be retrospective if it was enacted to cure some malady, and then of course history becomes important. No such intention is gathered from the object nor there is any such intention discernable from any provision of the Act. 5. Reliance was placed for the landlord on Explanation to Section 25 and it was urged that it left no room for doubt of the section being retrospective. Apparently there is nothing in the language which supports such contention. Rather use of word 'ceases' is in consonance with settled interpretation that use of present tense indicates that language intended the provision to apply prospectively. Moreover an Explanation is appended to a Section to elucidate or expound the principal clause. The principal clause prohibits sub-letting. The explanation widens it by including in it even occupation of premises by a person other than family member. That is even without sub-letting premises may be deemed to have been sub-let if the tenant in order to avoid applicability of provisions of letting etc. permits a person other than of his family to occupy it. There is however nothing in this explanation which by itself may indicate that it applies to such occupation before commencement of the Act. No assistance can be derived from expression ' deemed to have sub-let '. This deeming is in relation to sub-letting, and not to past transaction. The conduct of a tenant in permitting a person other than a family member to occupy normally does not amount to sub-letting, but it has been created as a fiction by this explanation. 6. In Ram Mani Devi v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1976 AWC 1 a Full Bench of five Judges held that Sections 12 and 25 of Act XIII of 1972 were not retrospective. Learned Counsel for opposite party urged that the question whether Section 25 was retrospective or prospective, did not arise in Ram Mani case. He relied on Smt. Keshar Bai and Another Vs. The District Judge and Others, (1980) AWC 385 a Full Bench decision, where it was held that Section 12(1)(b) of the Act was retrospective. Learned Counsel for opposite party urged that the question whether Section 25 was retrospective or prospective, did not arise in Ram Mani case. He relied on Smt. Keshar Bai and Another Vs. The District Judge and Others, (1980) AWC 385 a Full Bench decision, where it was held that Section 12(1)(b) of the Act was retrospective. And us by Explanation to Section 25 fiction has been created of deemed vacancy if the building was sub-let it applies to sub-letting which had taken place before the commencement of the Act. Reliance was also placed on Shambhu Nath Tandon Vs. IX Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge and Others, (1976) AWC 801. But these were the cases in respect of Section 12(1)(b). They did not relate to Section 25. In Smt. Gulab Devi v. VII Additional District Judge Kanpur 1981 ARC 602 it was observed. Page 607 para 8: Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on certain observations made in Smt. Kesar Bai case (supra) and on that basis has urged that Section 25 too should be treated as retrospective. 1 find it difficult to accept this submission in view of the decisions referred to above on the point; one of which is a decision by a Full Bench of five Judges. That apart, even if the test laid down in Smt. Kesar Bai's case (supra) while holding that Section 12(2) of the Act was not retrospective is applied to Explanation (1) to Section 25(2) of the Act, there seems to be no scope from the conclusion that the said Explanation cannot be held to be retrospective. Two main grounds have been stated in Smt. Kesar Bai's case (supra) for holding that Section 12(2) of the Act was not retrospective; (I) the use of the word 'admits' in the present tense in Section 12(2) of the Act; and (2) the legislative history in the sense that under the old Act there was no provision whereby a tenant could be treated to have sub-let an accommodation if he accepted some person as a partner. Both these tests are, in my opinion, applicable in the interpretation of Explanation (i) to Section 25(2) also. The said Explanation also uses the word 'ceases' in the present tense. Both these tests are, in my opinion, applicable in the interpretation of Explanation (i) to Section 25(2) also. The said Explanation also uses the word 'ceases' in the present tense. Likewise under the old Act there was no provision whereby a tenant was to be deemed to have sublet the accommodation in his tenancy simply because the said accommodation or a part thereof was permitted by the tenant to be occupied by some person who was not a member of the tenant's family. If the intention of the Legislature was to make Explanation (i) to Section 25(2) of the Act retrospective, there was no difficulty in bodily lifting the language of Section 12 and using the same in Explanation (i) to Section 25(2). In place of saying "where the tenant ceases, within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 12", it could have very well said where the tenant who is deemed to have ceased to occupy within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 12, to occupy the building or any part thereof. It is also important to notice that Explanation (i) to Section 25(2) places Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) at par with Sub-section (2) of Section 12 which has been held not to be retrospective in Smt. Kesar Bai's case (supra). Even accepting the ratio of Smt. Keshan Bai's case it docs not help the opposite party as the Explanation has been appended to explain the scope of Section 25. By it even ceases to occupy as defined in Section (12)(1)(II) has been fictionally deemed to be sub-letting. The fiction cannot he stretched beyond the purpose for which it was incorporated. Objective as stated earlier was to include occupation of a building by a person other all family member. It does not extend beyond it. By its appendage to Section 25 it does not render 1 retrospective because Section 12(1)(b) has been held to be retrospective. Since it is only an explanation it shall apply only in those cases where tenant cease; to occupy within meaning of Section 12(1)(b) after enforcement of the Act. The interpretation of Section 12(1)(b) cannot result in rendering the explanation as retrospective simply because similar or same situation as has been contemplated in that section is deemed to be sub-letting for purposes of Section 25. The interpretation of Section 12(1)(b) cannot result in rendering the explanation as retrospective simply because similar or same situation as has been contemplated in that section is deemed to be sub-letting for purposes of Section 25. Argument, therefore, that Section 25 is retrospective because Section 12(1)(b) has been held to be retrospective cannot be accepted. Consequently provision of Sub-clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act were not available to opposite party. 7. In the result Revision No. 315 of 1981 succeeds and is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 23rd April 1981 passed by VIII Additional District Judge Kanpur in Small Causes Suit No. 60 of 1978 is set aside and the suit is dismissed. Revision No. 255 of 1981 filed by landlord is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.