A sub-lessee from a tenant is a necessary party to an eviction proceeding under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, but if the landlord denies the relationship of landlord and tenant with the sub-lessee, the sub-lessee is not a party to the decree under execution within the meaning of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment of Khaleel Ahmad J. in a miscellaneous second appeal, arising put of a proceeding under Sec. 47, Civil P. C.

2. The sole question for determination, on this appeal, is, whether Sec. 47, Civil P.C. applies to the present case.

3. The respondent, as landlord of holding No. 143A, lying within the Madhubani Municipality, applied for eviction of his tenant under Sec.11 (1) (a), Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947). To this application, the admitted tenant Parmanand Jha, and, also the appellant, who was alleged to be a sub-lessee from the tenant, were made parties, and, eviction was sought against both. The tenant was opposite party 1, and, the appellant was opposite party 2 to this application for eviction. The House Controller on 18-7-1955, passed the following order:

"O.P. 1 (tenant) has not shown cause against eviction as prayed for by the petitioner (landlord). O.P. No. 1 is, therefore, ordered to put the house in question in petitioners possession by 18-9-55. The petitioner denies any relationship of landlord and tenant with O. P. No.

2. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek any action against the O.P. No. 2 under the House Control Act."

4. The respondent, thereafter executed the order of eviction, which had the force of a Civil court decree, by virtue of Sec.17 of the Act, before the 1st Munsif of Madhubani. On 5-1-1956, the appellant filed an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 2 of! 1956. The main objection taken by the appellant was that he was a party to the decree, and, no order of eviction was passed against him, and, as such, the execution for evicting him was barred by res judicata.

5. A writ for delivery of possession was, in due course, issued on 10-10-1955, fixing 14-10-1955 for return of the writ. The Nazir reported on 14-10-1955, that as soon as he reached the spot, and proclaimed by beat of drum, the persons named in his report, who were all members of the staff of the Cinema House of the appellant, came out and obstructed him in giving delivery of possession. Thereafter, on 14-10-1955, an application under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P. C. was filed by the decree-holder-respondent, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 134 of 1955. The appellant filed several petitions from time to time before the executing Court, and, one such petition was filed on 11-2-1956, in which in para 3, he mentioned that he has been occupying the house in question since 31-1-1954 on the basis of the agreement of lease executed by the applicant (that is, the landlord-decree-holder) and this objector (that is, the appellant) dated 17-1-54 which was the case of this objector before the House Controller also."

6. All these matters were heard together, and a composite order was passed by the executing Court on 24-2-1956, dismissing the objection of the appellant, and allowing the application of the decree-holder-respondent and directing that the decree-holder be put in possession of the house in question under Order 21, Rule 98, Civil P.C. In this proceeding, the show cause petition, filed by the appellant before the House Controller on 8-12-1954, was also filed by him and exhibited as Ext. B, to show that there also his case was that he was a tenant under the landlord, and not a sub-lessee under the tenant.

7. On appeal to the first Court of appeal, the order of the executing Court was affirmed, and, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. An appeal from this order to this Court was also unsuccessful, and decided against the appellant by Mr. Justice Ahmad, from whose judgment the present Letters Patent Appeal has been presented.

8. In order to determine the question of law, which has been raised by Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, on behalf of the appellant, the first question, which calls for a decision, is: What is the meaning of the decree under execution ?

9. Th