Sri Manik Majumdar vs Sri Bhupendra Kumar Baksi And Ors. on 11 January, 1990
3. In my opinion, the whole question boils down to a single point viz, whether the petitioner can claim to be impleaded against the will of the plaintiff. Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (herematter referred to as the Act) lays down as to when a sub-tenant should be impleaded in a proceeding for eviction against his tenant. The sub-tenant as a matter of right can claim that he should be impleaded proTided he has given notice of his sub-tenancy to the landlord, In my opinion, the provision under Section 16.(1) and (2) of the Act is mandatory. If the sub-tenant has not given mandatory notice under Section 16 of the Act, he cannot claim to be impleaded as a matter of right. If the statutory oobligation cast upon him under Section 16 of the Act has not been discharged, he cannot seek protection in a suit .for eviction against the tenant by having an opportunity to contest a proceeding for eviction against the tenant. Dr. Mondal concedes that his client has not given notice under Section 16 of the Act. The opposite parties rely upon a single Bench decision of this Court in R. N. Aich Roy v. Hanuman Estate (P) Ltd. . In paragraph 8 of the judgment the learned Judge found that whether the sub-tenant has to be made a party in the suit for ejectment or not, is provided in Section 13(2) of the Act. The plain meaning of the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the landlord is not bound to make the sub-tenant a party to the suit unless the sub-tenant has served his landlord with a notice under Section 16(2) of the Act. In the decisions referred to by Dr. Mondal there was no occasion to consider any provision corresponding to Section 13(2) and Section 16 of the Act. While not discharging the statutory obligation under Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner cannot come and say that he should be impleaded in a proceeding against the tenant. In that event, Section 13(2) of the Act becomes meaningless.