Civil Appeal No 150 of 1963
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated January 9 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No 48 of 1961
NC Chatterlee RK Garg SC Agarwal MK Rarnatnurthi and DP Singh for the appellant
MC Setalvad and BP Maheshwari for the respondent
October 10 1963
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J
Raj Kishore Tewari appellant in this appeal by special leave was occupying certain premises as sub tenant of Susil Chandra Banerjee under a registered lease dated April 10 1954
His tenancy commenced from April 1 1954
The rent fixed was Rs 220 per mensem
Subsequent 123 ly it was reduced to Rs 205 by an agreement dated June 9 1954
The tenancy was monthly
Susil Chandra Banerjee was the tenant of Govindaram Bhansali from September 15 1943 at a monthly rental of Rs 153 plus certain other charges
On June 16 1955 the landlord obtained a decree of ejectment against Susil Chandra Banerjee
In view of sub section
2 of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act 1950 Act XVII of 1950 hereinafter called the Act the appellant became the tenant of the landlord after the determination of the tenancy of Susil Chandra Banerjee
On March 19 1957 the land lord respondent gave a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April 1957 on the ground that he being the statutory tenant had not paid rents to him since June 16 1955 and as such was not entitled to any protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 Act XII of 1956
Subsequently on June 10 1957 the respondent instituted the suit for ejectment of the appellant from the premises
The suit was resisted by the appellant on various grounds
His defence was however struck off due to certain default
Ultimately the suit was decreed on December 15 1959
An appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful
The High Court refused to give leave to appeal to this Court
Thereafter the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and filed the appeal
The only point urged for the appellant is that the notice of ejectment dated March 19 1957 was invalid in view of the fact that under the law the notice must be to require the appellant to deliver possession on the expiry of the month of tenancy that the tenancy was from the 16th of a month as the decree for ejectment against the tenant of the first degree was passed on June 16 1955 and that this notice required the delivery of possession on the expiry of the last day of April
We may say that this point was not raised in the written statement
It was however allowed to be raised in the appellate Court but was repelled
124 The only point to determine in this appeal is the date from which the tenancy of the appellant vis a vis the respondent commenced
The relevant portion of sub s2 of section 13 of the Act is 2 Where any premises or any part thereof have been or has been sub let by a tenant of the first degree  or by a tenant inferior to a tenant of the first degree  as defined in explanation to sub section 1 and the sub lease is binding on the landlord of such last mentioned tenant if the tenancy of such tenant in either case is lawfully determined otherwise than by virtue of a decree in a suit obtained by the landlord by reason of any of the grounds specified in clause h of the proviso to sub section 1 of section 12 the sub lessee shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect of such premises or part as the case may be holding directly under the landlord of the tenant whose tenancy has been determined on terms and conditions on which the sub lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy of the latter had not been so determined
 There is nothing in these provisions which should persuade us to hold as urged for the appellant that the sub tenant becomes a tenant of the landlord from the date on which the tenancy of the tenant against whom a decree for ejectment is passed is determined
The provisions only lay down that the sub tenant would become the tenant of the landlord if the tenancy in chief is determined lawfully
On the other hand this sub section lays down that the subtenant would be tenant on the terms and conditions on which the sub lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy of the tenant had not been determined
This means that the terms and conditions of the tenancy between the erstwhile sub tenant and the landlord continue to be the same which were the terms and conditions of the sub tenancy
Such terms and conditions of the tenancy in the case of the appellant were that he was to be a monthly tenant on the payment of a certain rent and that his tenancy was to 125 commence from the first day of April 1954
It is clear therefore that his tenancy was by the calendar month
It commenced on the first day of the month and expired on the last day of the month
This period of monthly tenancy was in no way affected by the provisions of sub section
2 of section 13 whose effect was simply this that the sub tenant instead of being sub tenant of the tenant who had been ejected got a direct connection with the landlord and became his tenant in chief or as the Act describes tenant in the first degree
The statutory provision just brought about a change in the landlord of the sub tenant
The proprietor landlord took the place of the tenantin chief from whom the sub tenant had secured the tenancy
We are therefore of opinion that the High Court was right in rejecting the contention of the appellant with respect to the invalidity of the notice for ejectment dated March 19 1957
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was a sub tenant of S on a monthly basis commencing from April 1 1954
S was the tenant of the Respondent from September 15 1943 on a monthly rental
On June 16 1955 the respondent obtained a decree of ejectment against section In view of sub s2 of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act 1950 the appellant became the tenant of the respondent after the determination of the tenancy of section The respondant gave a notice to the appellant asking him to deliver possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of April 122 1957 since he being a statutory tenant had not paid rent since June 16 1955
The respondant instituted a suit for ejectment which was decreed and an appeal to the High Court by the appellant was unsuccessful
On appeal by special leave it was contended that the notice was invalid for under the law the notice must be to require the appellant to deliver possession on the expiry of the month of tenancy that the tenancy was from the 16th of a month as the decree for ejectment against S was passed on June 16 1955 and that this notice required the delivery of possession on the expiry of the last day of April
Held The contention was untenable and rightly rejected by the High Court
The provisions of Sub section
2 of section 13 of the West Bengal Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act 1950 only lay down that the sub tenant would become the tenant of the landlord if the tenancy in chief is determined on the same terms and conditions on which the sub lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy of the tenant had not been determined
This means that the terms and conditions of the tenancy between the erstwhile sub tenant and the landlord continue to be the same which were the terms and conditions of the sub tenancy
The period of monthly tenancy commencing from the first of the month and expiring on the last day of the month was in no way affected by the provisions of Sub section
2 of section 13 whose effect was simply that the sub tenant instead of being sub tenant of the tenant who had been ejected got a direct connection with the landlord and became his tenant in chief