JUDGMENT

 The respondent filed a suit, O.S. No. 840/79 on the original side of Calcutta High Court for ejectment of the appellant from 4th floor of premises No. 20, Old Court House Street, Calcutta on diverse grounds under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for short the Tenancy Act. That suit was dismissed by a learned single Judge but on appeal, Appeal No. 309 of 1984 (or 1989-Ed.) filed by the respondent before the Division Bench, was allowed, judgment and decree of learned single Judge set aside, and the suit was decreed on the ground of subletting under Section 13(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act. Thus, this appeal by special leave from appellate judgment and decree dated October 4, 1991.

2. The respondents case is, that the appellant after taking demised premises on rent of Rs. 2,250/- per mensum, has inducted the United Bank of India Employees Association Central Committee, a registered trade union into the demised premises and allowed it to have its exclusive possession and use of the same for its trade union activities without its (landlords) written consent and that thereby it has contravened Section 13(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act. The Division Bench upheld that case finding that the landlord had succeeded in proving that the bank had parted with the possession of the demised premises in favour of the union which was in complete and exclusive possession of the 4th floor of the premises No. 20, Old Court House Street, Calcutta, and hence there was subletting and/or transfer to tenancy interest in favour of the third person without the consent of the landlord and as such the tenant was not entitled to any protection under the Tenancy Act. The contention of the appellant is that though the trade union was in possession of the demised premises, it is a part of the appellants trading activity and the appellant had control over the trade union. The trade union is bound to vacate the demised premises when appellant needs and it is the appellant which has been taking care of the maintenance of the premises at its own expenses. It has been paying the municipal taxes, in charge of management and also has reserved its right to ask the trade union at any time to deliver possession back to it. It has not been collecting any rent from the trade union. Under those circumstances, the legal position remained with the bank and thereby it had not sublet the premises to the trade union in terms of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act.

3. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent was that in view of the admitted fact that the working hours between the Bank and the Trade Union activities are different and the trade union is having been in exclusive possession of the premises for its trade union activities which has no connection with the banks activities of the appellant, the only inference that could be drawn is that the appellant had parted with the possession of the demised premises in favour of the trade union and for consideration. The subletting was therefore, established by the respondent. Accordingly, the Division Bench had considered the problem, and granted the decree. Hence, there is no illegality in the decree granted by the Division Bench.

4. The crucial question that requires our consideration is, whether the appellant had sub-let the premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, which postulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds namely :-

(a) Where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to the tenant without the previous consent in writing of the landlord transfers, assigns or sub-lets in whole or in part the premises held by him :

5. The contention that the above provision has no application to the non-residential building, although appears to be plausible exfacie on a closer scrutin