M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against Order No. 24, dated March 19, 1964 of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby the learned Chief Judge allowed the miscellaneous case arising out of an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The decree-holder opposite party Messrs. Hanuman Estates (Private) Limited obtained a decree for ejectment in Ejectment Suit No. 1945 of 1960 against the Indian and Eastern Engineering Company Limited in respect of two rooms. The said decree was executed and when the bailiff had been to the suit premises for delivery of possession resistance was offered by one D. N. Varma, the managing director of the judgment-debtor company, namely, the Indian and Eastern Engineering Company Limited and by the petitioner R. N. Aich Roy, the managing director of Messrs. Trade Nexus Private Limited whereupon the decree-holder company made an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for police help.
(3.) The case of the petitioner was that one Meckenzie Lyall and Company was the tenant of the first degree under the decree-holder company. The judgment-debtor company was me sub-tenant under the tenant of the first degree. The judgment-debtor company sublet the suit premises to Messrs. Trade Nexus Private Limited. After the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 came into force Messrs. Trade Nexus Private Limited served a notice under Section 16 (2) of the Act on its immediate landlord, the Indian and Eastern Engineering Company Limited. Thereafter, Messrs. Trade Nexus Private Limited started a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Act In that proceeding the tenant of the first degree, namely, Messrs. Meckenzie Lyall and Company and the Indian and Eastern Engineering Company Limited were parties. The decree-holder company who was the superior landlord was not a party to the said proceeding. The controller by his order dated July 25, 1957 held that the application under Section 16 (3) was filed within the statutory period of limitation, that the notice under Section 16 (2) was legal and valid and that the petitioner was entitled to be declared as a direct tenant under the Indian and Eastern Engineering Company Limited (sic Meckenzie Lyall and Company?) under Section 16 (3) of the Act. It appears, however, that in the subsequent proceeding for apportionment of rent the Rent Controller dismissed the application under Section 16 (3) on the ground that the superior landlord Hanuman Estates Private Limited was not made a party to the said proceeding. That order was passed by the Controller on September 12, 1958. The said order was not produced before the court below by either of the parties, but a certified copy of the order has been produced before me at the time of hearing of the Rule.;