Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Transfer Application filed by respondent Nos. 3 Rakesh Gupta (T.A. No. 66 of 2013) has already been dismissed by me on 26.2.2013. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are tenants of large property on behalf of the petitioner. The lease deed was executed in the year 1982. According to the terms of the lease deed they were entitled to induct licences. They inducted in part of the leased property respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as licencees. Thereafter, they filed release application against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was allowed. Now the said release order is being executed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 against respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in 2011 S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner for eviction against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The lease deed executed in 1982 was only for 10 years. Landlord petitioner has also filed another suit in the form of O.S. No. 1625 of 2012 for injunction against all the four respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner is superior landlord hence he can permit the licencee/sub tenant i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to continue. I do not agree with this argument. If lessee continues in possession even after expiry of lease he does not become trespasser. At least he retains the minimum right as tenant at sufferance. Even during such period (while enjoying only the right of tenant at sufferance) tenants right viz-a-viz sub-tenants or licences who had been inducted by him subsists and continue. The superior landlord or paramount title holder cannot take over the position of tenant in respect of sub tenants and permit them to continue in possession even though the tenant may be having a right to evict them. In such situation superior landlord is entitled to file suit for eviction against tenant either impleading or not impleading the sub tenants and if the suit is decreed then landlord would be entitled to take possession not only from the tenant but also from the sub tenants. However, he cannot grant immunity from eviction to the sub tenants if tenant has got a decree of eviction against his sub tenants until either through decree of the Court chief tenant is evicted or chief tenant willingly hands over possession to the landlord and surrenders whatever right he has got.

4. This question has thoroughly been examined by the Supreme Court in Vasu Deo v. Bal Kishan, AIR 2002 SC 569. In the said case the shop in dispute was owned by a trust, the trust had leased out the shop to the tenant who in-turn had subsequently inducated a sub tenant. Tenant filed suit for eviction against sub tenant. Trust also filed a suit for eviction against the chief tenant. Sub tenant pleaded that he had attorned in favour of the paramount title holder the trust and had entered into a direct tenancy with the trust. The Supreme Court held that during the subsistance of sub lease and without vacating the promises the sub tenant could not have attorned to the trust the paramount title holder merely because the trust had filed eviction suit against the tenant. Para-15 of the said authority is quoted below :

15. We may now deal with D. Satyanarayana’s case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. A suit for eviction from the demised premises was decreed under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 which provides for eviction of a tenant if the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and such denial or claim was not bona fide. The limited question arising for decision before this Court was whether the appellant was estopped from denying the title of the lessor under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 despite the fact that there was threat of eviction by the owner of the demised premises by a person having title paramount so as to examine whether such denial could be said to be