A sub-tenant who has not complied with the requirements of s. 16 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1950, cannot be said to be a representative of the tenant within the meaning of s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and cannot maintain an objection under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Tarun Chatterjee, J. : This revisional application is being moved with notice to the learned advocate for the caveator.

2. This revisional application is moved against an order passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta rejecting an application for stay of all further proceedings in Execution Case No 134 of 1992 till the disposal of an objection filed by the petitioner under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has given rise to Misc. Case 2425 of 1995.

3. The opposite party No. 2 as a plaintiff instituted a suit against the opposite party No.1 for his eviction in respect of premises No. 90/1A Indian Mirror Street, Police Station Taltala, Calcutta 700 013 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The said eviction suit was decreed in favour of the opposite party No.2. An execution proceeding being Execution Case No. 134 of 1992 has been started at the instance of the decree holder/opposite party No.2. Challenging the executibility of the said decree for eviction passed against the tenant/opposite party No. 1/petitioner has filed an objection under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has given rise to as r.6ted hereinabove, Misc. Case No. 2425 of 1995. In the objection under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has alleged that he is a monthly tenant in respect of one room on the second floor of the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 50 payable according to English Calendar Month under the Judgment debtor/opposite party No 1. From the objection-petition it is evident that the petitioner has claimed that he was inducted as a sub-tenant by the tenant/opposite party No. 1 on and from 1st day of March 1980. It is also evident from the said objection that due intimation of the creation of the sub-tenancy in favour of the petitioner was given to the landlady, the present decree holder/opposite party No. 2 as such it must be said that sub-tenancy was within the knowledge of the decree-holder/opposite party No.2. Therefore, the petitioner being a representative of the original tenant within the meaning of s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is entitled to raise the question of executibility of the decree passed against the tenant opposite party No 1. An application for stay of the execution proceeding was filed by the objector/petitioner till the disposal of the aforesaid misc. case filed under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, as noted hereinabove, the said petition was rejected.

4. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Executing Court, the petitioner has come up to this Court in revision.

5. I have heard Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee the learned advocate for the decree-holder/opposite party No. 2 at length and after going through the materials, oh record and also after giving my anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties I am of the view that the learned Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the application for stay of the aforesaid execution case till the aforesaid misc. case filed under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner was disposed of.

6. The reasons are as follows: Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer for stay of all further proceedings in the aforesaid Execution case till the disposal of the Misc. Case filed under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on finding that as the petitioner was admittedly alleging to be a sub-tenant under the tenant/judgment debtor/opposite party No. 1 and since there was no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner being a sub-tenant had given any notice of such sub-letting to the landlord of the premises and that the landlord had also consented to such subletting in writing, the exceptions provided in Sub-ss. (2) and (4) of s. 13 of the West Bengal