BAJRANGLAL AGARWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule raises a question of some importance under Section 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The rule arises out of a proceeding under the said section, which was started by opposite party No. 1 upon the allegation, inter alia, that it was a sub-tenant in respect of the disputed premises, comprising suite or Block (Flat) H on the. second floor of P-16 Bentinck Street, Calcutta, at a monthly rental of Rs. 66 per month according to the English Calendar under the tenant opposite party No. 2, which held its said tenancy at the same rental and, presumably, according to the same calendar, too, under the owner landlord, which is the Petitioner before me. In its application under the aforesaid section, which gave rise to the above proceeding, the opposite party No. 1 further alleged that its sub-tenancy had been created in or about June 1954, and had been in existence since then and that it had given due notice to the superior landlord Petitioner under Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Section 16. To its said application, the opposite party No. 1 impleaded the superior landlord Petitioner and also the tenant, opposite party No. 2 which was its immediate landlord.

(2.) In the meantime, an event happened, which according to the Petitioner, is of special importance in this case. That event, on which the Petitioner strongly relies and on which its entire argument in this rule is founded, was the passing of an ejectment decree in favour of the Petitioner and against opposite party No. 2 in Ejectment Suit No. 2213 of 1954, which had been filed in the Court of Small Causes. Calcutta, by the Petitioner against the said opposite party after service of a notice to quit, expiring with the month of August, 1954, and which suit was decreed on August 22, 1956.

(3.) The substance of the Petitioner's argument may be stated here as follows: