Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Under a warrant of possession Issued under Rule 35 (1) in Form No. 11 of Appendix E, only a person bound by the decree may be removed from the property.

6. A sub-tenant is bound by the decree for eviction of the tenant if the decree is based upon a ground which determines the sub-tenancy and he may then be removed in execution of the decree under Rule 35 (1). See -- 'Sailendra Nath Bhattacharjaya v. Bijan Lal Chakravarty . On the other hand, a sub-tenant, who claims a statutory right to occupy the property independently of the tenant under the Rent Control laws, e, g., under Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 or Section 11 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, is not a representative of a judgment-debtor and is not bound by the decree for ejectment and lie may not, therefore, be removed In execution of a decree against the tenant. He is, therefore, entitled to resist execution of the warrant and if he is dispossessed he may apply under Rule 100 of Order 21 for restoration of possession (See - 'S. N. Tala- patra v. Bengal Bonded Ware House' (B) ). But he has no right to apply under Rule 97 of Order 21 for declaration of his right. (See - 'Sukhan Singh v. Baijnath Goenka', 12 Cal WN 115 (C) ). Section 11 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 or Section 13 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, gives him no right to intervene in the proceedings between the landlord and the ten- ant, (See - 'Thakurdas Pushparaj v. Dwarka Prasad', 87 Cal LJ 181 (D); and - 'Bnupesh Chan-dra Dutta v. Dr. M. N. Bose', . He has no right to apply under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code for an adjudication of his rights and for a quia timet order restraining his removal and his remedy is to institute a separate suit for adjudication of his rights. (See - 'Nityananda Kapuria v. Parbati Nath Dutta', 58 Cal WN 407 (F); and - 'Khetra-mohan Manimohan Saha v. Parbati Nath Dutta', . At the same time this Court has also held that Order 21 provides a complete procedure for the protection of his rights and that 'ordinarily he should adopt that procedure and not the procedure of a separate suit for such' protection and for injunction. - 'Narendra Krishna Bose v. Great Eastern Hotel : Ltd.', 68 CLJ 72 (sic1). See also - 'Rajani Kanta Das v. Dayal Chandra Das', (H).