UNITED BANK OF INDIA LTD. Vs. J.C. MITRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner United Bank of India Ltd. is a banking company having its registered office at Calcutta. It has its branch office at Tinsukia. The opposite party No. 1 J.C. Mitra was a tenant under the Petitioner bank in respect of the premises owned by it at Tinsukia under a lease executed and registered on the 22nd July, 1953. In the lease the period fixed was one year and the lessee had no right to sublet the demised premises. The bank brought a suit in the year 1957 against the opposite party No. 1 for ejectment and khas possession and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. An appeal was filed to this Court which was numbered as F.A. 37/58.

(2.) IT is contended by Mr. Choudhury for the Petitioner that in the eye of law the sub -tenants are also bound by the decree against the tenant and as legally they are so bound, delivery of possession could be given as against them under Order 21, Rule 35, Code of Civil Procedure and the court was not right in directing the decree -holder to apply under Order 21, Rule 97. His contention is that if any dispute was raised that the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 were sub -tenants of the original tenant or not, the execution court should have investigated that matter. Order 21 Rule 35 gives a right to the decree -holder to get possession against all those persons who are bound by the decree and before it can be decided whether the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 were bound by the decree or not, it had to be decided whether they were sub -tenants or not. In proceedings under Order 21 Rule 35 thus the execution court was competent to decide whether the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 were sub -tenants of the judgment -debtor or not.

(3.) THE next case is Asrabuddin v. Abdul Fazal reported in : AIR 1947 Cal 139. This was also an appeal arising out of a suit and it was held in this case that the principle that in the case of leases under the Transfer of Property Act, a decree for ejectment secured against the lessee will bind a sub -tenant of the lessee though not a party to the ejectment suit and that he as much as the lessee can be ejected under Order 21, Rule 35, Code of Civil Procedure in execution of the decree will not apply to a case under the Bengal Tenancy Act.