Pre-Act sub-tenants who have not given notice of their sub-tenancy under Section 16(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 are not entitled to protection against eviction under Section 13(2) of the Act. The right of sub-tenants under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 to be deemed tenants directly under the landlord upon lawful determination of the tenancy in favor of the tenant of the first degree does not survive the repeal of the Act by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, unless such determination occurs before the repeal.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 15, 1971, passed by our learned brother S. K. Dutta, J. , thereby dismissing an appeal from appellate decree No. 218 of 1964 preferred by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in a suit for eviction, The said defendants are the appellants now before us. The short point which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the said defendants who have been found to be in occupation of different parts of the suit premises as sub-tenants since before the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 but who had not given any notice of such sub-tenancy under Section 18 (2) of the said Act, would be entitled to protection against eviction,

( 2 ) THE respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us (hereinafter referred to us the plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No. 251 of 1957 for eviction against their tenant, the respondent No. 3 before us (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No. 1) on two fold grounds of default and wrongful subletting. In this suit the present appellants defendants Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the said defendants) were made parties as they claimed to be sub-tenants in respect of the suit premises though they had not given any notice of their sub-tenancy under Section 16 (2) of the said Act.

( 3 ) IN the suit two sets of written statements were filed -- one on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and the other on behalf of the said defendants. The defence of the defendant No. 1 was struck off under the provision of Section 17 (3) of the said Act and the suit was contested by the said defendants, They claimed themselves to be sub-tenants -- the sub-tenancy in their favour being created by the erstwhile tenant since before 1956 with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs and, as such, they are entitled to protection against eviction.

( 4 ) THE two courts below concurrently found that the said defendants came to occupy the suit premises as sub-tenants since before the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that again to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their employees. But as the said courts further found that these defendants had failed to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 16 (2) of the said Act, they were not entitled to any protection against eviction under the provision of Section 13 (2) of the said Act, which protects only such subtenants as had given notice of their subtenancies under the provision of Section 16 of the said Act, The two courts thus concurrently decreed the plaintiffs' suit against all the defendants including the said defendants and they preferred the above second appeal to this court. Our learned brother concurred with the view expressed by the two courts below and dismissed the second appeal. The said defendants, however, obtained leave under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and on the basis thereof the present appeal has been preferred by them. The material issues of fact being concluded by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the only point for our consideration now is as to whether under the law the said defendants can claim any protection against eviction by virtue of their position as sub-tenants under the defendant No. 1.

( 5 ) MR. Bose appearing in support of this appeal has raised two points. In the first place it has been contended that the objects of a notice under Section 16 (2) of the Act being one to apprise the landlord of the existence of the sub-tenancy that was otherwise fulfilled upon the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs had due knowledge of the existence of such sub-tenancy since before the 1956 Act, Hence, according to Mr. Bose irrespective of whether a notice under Section 16 (2) of Act was served on the landlord or not, the said defendants are entitled to protection under Section 13 (2) of the said Act, Alternatively, it has been contended by Mr. Bose that in view of the amended provision of