1. THIS appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is against a judgment of our learned brother chittatosh Mukherjee, J. by which his lordship has dismissed an appeal in this court against the judgment and decree passed by a judge of City Civil Court dismissing a suit instituted by the present appellant,

2. THAT suit was for a declaration that the decree passed in favour of the present respondent No. 1 Sm. Maina bibi against respondent No. 2. Messrs. Surajmal Nagarmal for eviction is not binding on the plaintiff. Relevant facts are that under the Respondent M s. Surajmal Nagarmal was a tenant in respect of a portion of the second floor of premises No. 192, jamunalal Bajaj Street under M/s. Tejpal jamuna Das the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No. 1 who subsequently became the owner of the premises. Present plaintiffs were in ducted as sub-tenants in respect of part of the premises. The tenancy of Surajmal nagarmal, was terminated by a notice u/s. 106 T. P. Act and in Suit No. 937 of 1966 a decree for eviction was passed against them. Present plaintiffs were not made parties in that suit and no notice u/s. 106 T. P. Act was given to them. In execution of that decree the respondent prayed for vacant possession of the premises by evicting the plaintiffs also.

3. THAT decree was put in execution in Ex. Case No. 375 of 1968. The plaintiffs resisted delivery of possession and then present suit was instituted on the allegation that after the passing of premises Tenancy Act of 1956 they had given notice u s. 16 (2) of that Act and therefore the decree obtained without giving them notice to quit and without making them parties in suit is not binding on them. The case made by the plaintiffs was that a notice was sent to the landlord on 2. 5. 56 by post under certificate of posting and a copy of it was sent to the tenant also. Ext. 6 (b)is the copy of that notice proved in the case and Ext. 10 is the certificate of posting. That was before the Rules under the Act was framed.

4. AFTER the Rules framed under the act, another notice was sent to the tenants Surajmal Nagarmal by regd, post as required by Rule 4 and there in they were requested to inform the superior landlord about the sub-tenancy. On those assertions the plaintiff contended that as notice had been given u/s. 16 (2), the decree obtained against tenant without making the sub-tenant parties in the suit is not binding on the sub-tenant.

5. THE defendant landlord denied the assertion that notice u s. 16 (2) had been given. They contend that both the notices are fabrications and manufactured for the purpose of the suit.

6. BOTH the parties adduced evidence in the trial court. That part of the plaintiff's case in paragraph 1 of the plaint in which they claimed to have been sub-tenants under defendant No. 2 with the knowledge and consent of m/s. Tejpal Jamuna Das appears to have been abandoned at the trial. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to prove such consent of the landlord, though that was denied in the written statement. The trial court found upon evidence that the plaintiffs had been a sub-tenant under the tenants from before the commencement of W. B. P. T. Act, 1956. But the trial court held that no notice of the creation of sub-tenancy u/s. 16 (2) of the Act was served on the superior landlord and the plaintiffs were not entitled to protection under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Sec. 13 of the W. B. P. T. Act, 1956. As a consequence the decree passed in the previous suit was held to. be binding on the plaintiff and the declaration and consequential reliefs prayed for in the suit were refused, and the suit was dismissed.

7. AGAINST that decision of the trial court, an appeal was preferred and it was registered as F. A. No. 96 of 1970. Value of the appeal is only Rs. 100/- and under the rules of this court that First appeal has been heard and decided by our learned brother Chittatosh Mukherjee, sitting singly.

8. IN the first appeal in this court the contr