Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In Ram Dulare Singh v. Sukkhoo Ram, 1963 R.D. 221 it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that a sub-tenant did not cease to be a sub-tenant by efflux of time. It was held, that if a sub-tenant had a right to remain in possession it could be only in one capacity and that of a sub-tenant. The Bench observed, the interest of a tenant was not extinguished by efflux of the time for which the lease was granted to him. The expiry of the period of the lease had no effect on his tenancy rights. Section 48 provided that when the interest of a sub-tenant was extinguished he was bound to vacate his holding. There is no such provision in respect of extinction of the interest of a tenant. A sub-tenant's interest also was extinguished in the manner laid down in Section 45, i.e., it was not extinguished by efflux of the time for which the Sub-lease was granted to him. The period of the Sub-lease might have expired, but he continued to be a sub-tenant so long as he did not die heirless, did not surrender or abandon the holding, was not ejected in execution of a decree or order of a Court etc. The only effect of the efflux of time was that he became liable to be ejected under Section 175(b) but, so long a she was not ejected, he continued to be a sub-tenant because his interest was not extinguished. It made no difference that he was required on extinction of his interest to vacate his holding whereas a tenant was not required to vacate his holding on extinction of his interest, because the question whether the holding should be vacated or not did not arise so long as the interest was not extinguished. As far as the question whether the interest was extinguished or not, the U.P. Tenancy Act made no difference between interest of a tenant and interest of a sub-tenant'. In Chaudhary Mohd. M. A. Khan v. Board of Revenue, 1958 All LJ 904, it was held that a sub-tenant even after ejectment in execution of decree continues to be sub-tenant.