JUDGMENT :- The plaintiffs in this suit claim to be sub-tenants in respect of certain portions of the premises in suit. Defendant 1 is the superior landlord and defendants 2 and 3 are alleged to be the tenants of such superior landlord.

2. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the order for possession of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, dated 2nd March 1948, passed against defendants 2 and 3 Bhupea Chandra Ghose and Lalan Chandra Ghose [hereinafter referred to as the Ghose defendants]) does not bind the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the sub-tenants of the premises in suit entitled to reside therein until the lawful termination of their sub-tenancy and for injunction restraining defendant 1 Sailendra Nath Baba Chaudhury [hereinafter referred to as the landlord defendant] from executing the Small Causes Court decree or order for possession against the plaintiffs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are and have been the sub-tenants of the Ghose defendants. The landlord defendant Sailen is the owner of the premises in suit under whom the Ghose defendants were the tenants. A notice to quit was given by the Ghose defendants to the plaintiffs on or about the 24th October 1946. The landlord defendant Sailen instituted proceedings in the Calcutta Small Causes Court being suit No. 1691 of 1947 against the Ghose defendants for possession of the said premises. In the Small Causes Court proceedings the landlord defendant Sailen did not implead the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were not parties to such proceedings. The landlord defendant Sailen obtained an order for possession against Ghose defendants in those proceedings on 8th December 1947. In execution of the said order defendant Sailen has obtained a further order for eviction on 2nd March 1948. The Ghose defendants have not entered appearance in this suit. The landlord defendant Sailen has filed his written statement and disputes the plaintiffs claim to occupy the said premises.

4. Mr. A.K. Hazra learned counsel for the plaintiffs abandoned the plea of conspiracy and collusion laid in the plaint. The only issue raised was :

Have the plaintiffs been in possession of the premises as sub-tenants for a period not lees than seven years and not expiring on the 1st October 1946 ?

If so, are the liable to be evicted under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, by the landlord defendant Sailen in pursuance of the decree and order of possession of the Small Causes Court ?

Mr. Hazra called plaintiff Gour Mohan Roy as his first witness to prove the fact of (1) sub-tenancy and (2) its duration for not less than seven years and not expiring on 1st October 1946. Daring the examination in chief and after the said witness had adduced proof, Mr. A.K. Sen learned counsel for the landlord defendant Sailen conceded that the plaintiffs were the sub-tenants for over seven years and not expiring on 1st October 1946 and still continuing as such sub-tenants upon that concession. Mr. Hazra did not proceed further with the examination of the said witness and Mr. Sen did not cross-examine him.

I have directed the concession to be recorded is the minutes and it disposes of the first part of the issue.

5. The arguments of learned counsel have naturally therefore centred round the legal effect of such sub-tenancy and whether having regard to such sub-tenancy the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the protection of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948.

6. Mr. Hazra appearing for the plaintiffs has argued that S. 13 of the Act protects his clients. The plaintiffs according to him were persons to whom the said premises had been sublet for a period of not less than seven years and each period did not expire on or after 1st October 1946. In such a case, he argues, that the Ghose defendants as tenants are not entitled to the benefit of S. 11 of the Act and his clients the plaintiffs shall be deemed to be the tenants holding directly under the landlord defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document