Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. As regards the first point, it may be taken to be established by authorities that a decree for eviction against a lessee is binding on the sub-lessee even though the latter [has not been made a party to the suit and 'he can be ejected in execution of the decree without any proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P. C: vide Ramkissan Das v. Binjraj Chowdhury ('23) 10 AIR 1923 Cal 691 and Sk. Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra . Assuming that the principle is applicable to the case of a tenancy under the Bengal Tenancy Act, I do not think it is of any assistance to the plaintiffs in the present case. According to this view, the only remedy of the landlord would be to execute the decree which he obtained against the lessee, against the sub-tenant also. But this remedy is no longer open to the present plaintiffs, as more than three years have already passed since the decree was executed against Tajamaddin and Roushan Ali and a suit is barred under Section 17, Civil P.C. I am of the opinion however that this principle cannot have any application to a tenancy created under the Bengal Tenancy Act. If the defendants are under-raiyats within the mean-ling of Section 4, Ben. Ten. Act, they can be ejected only under the provisions of Section 48 (c) of the Act and not otherwise. If, on the other hand, they are not under-raiyats, they must be deemed to be trespassers and can be turned out irrespective of any decree for ejectment having been obtained against their alleged lessors.