Advocates:
A.N.SINHA, B.N.KIRPAL, H.K.PURI, M.G.PODDAR, S.N.MUKHERJEE, T.P.DAS, V.N.PODDAR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The tenancy was initially created under a written lease that prohibited sub-letting or parting with possession without prior written consent from the landlord (!) .

2. The tenant, Allen Berry, served a notice of intent to vacate the premises, which was subsequently withdrawn by the tenant, but the landlord did not agree to this withdrawal and insisted on vacating (!) (!) .

3. The notice to vacate served by Allen Berry was deemed to have effectively determined the tenancy upon acceptance by the landlord, and such a notice cannot be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of both parties (!) (!) .

4. The law states that a lease can be determined by a notice given in accordance with the law, and once such a notice is accepted or acted upon, the tenancy is considered terminated (!) .

5. The landlord's subsequent act of leasing the premises to a third party indicated the tenancy of Allen Berry was effectively ended, and the tenancy was not revived by the withdrawal of the notice (!) .

6. The protection provided to statutory tenants under rent control legislation does not extend to those who have parted with possession or whose tenancy has been lawfully determined, especially if they have no estate or interest in the premises (!) (!) .

7. Sub-letting by a tenant who has no estate or interest in the premises does not confer the rights of a tenant to the sub-tenant under the rent control legislation; such sub-tenants do not automatically acquire the status or protection of tenants under the law (!) (!) .

8. The definition of "tenant" in the relevant legislation includes contractual tenants but does not extend to statutory tenants who have no estate or interest in the property, particularly when their tenancy has been lawfully terminated (!) (!) .

9. The protections against eviction and the rights to sub-let are contingent upon the existence of a valid, contractual tenancy; statutory tenants without such interest cannot claim the same rights or protections (!) (!) .

10. The court emphasized that the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants are governed by the contractual terms and statutory provisions, and any rights to sub-let or protections under rent control laws are limited to those with a recognized estate or interest in the premises (!) (!) .

11. The appeal resulted in the modification of the original decree, affirming the landlord’s right to possession and awarding mesne profits from the date the tenancy was lawfully determined, with costs awarded in favor of the landlords (!) .

If you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding tenancy law or related issues, please let me know.