(1) THE appellants are the landlord of the premises in dispute. Admittedly, the premises were let out to New Prabhat Silk Mills in the year 1954. The Mill, and the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents shall hereafter be referred to as per their rank in the original suit for the sake of convenience and reference as Defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It appears that originally Defendants 2 and 3 were the employees of Defendant 1 and they were given residence in Rooms 1 and 3 respectively in the aforesaid premises.

(2) SUBSEQUENTLY, the landlord brought a suit for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of sub-letting, erection of permanent structure, bona fide requirement of the premises and default in payment of rent. The Small Cause Court decreed the suit excepting Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7.

(3) AGGRIEVED, the landlord filed an appeal against that part of the order whereby the suit against Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7 was dismissed. The appellate court found that Defendants 2 and 3 were having a service tenancy and therefore were not covered by the protection made available to the subtenant by the Act. The appellate court also found that since the sub-te