JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The Plaintiff-Respondent is a purchaser of a putni taluk on a sale for arrears of rent. The Defendant-Appellant is the holder of a subordinate tenure within the taluk. The sub-tenure was created by the putnidar subsequent to the grant of the putni. Within a year of his purchase, the Plaintiff took steps under sec. 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for avoidance of the Defendant's sub-tenure, and shortly after instituted the suit under appeal. 2. Various defences were raised in the lower Court, but only two questions have been submitted for our decision. The first is based on sec. 160, cl. (g) of the Act. Did the proprietor expressly and in writing give the putnidar permission to create the sub-tenure ? The Appellant has this initial difficulty to face : he can produce no such writing. He, however, relies on the following clause in the putni kabuliyat:--"If I (putnidar) should let out this mehal in dur-putni to any person, such dur-putnidar shall act according to the terms of my kabuliyat." The putni pottah has not been put in, nor any copy of it. It would be straining the language of the clause in the kabuliyat to say that these words amounted to an express permission to create the sub-tenure. The clause simply means that, if the putnidar creates a subordinate tenure, (and sec. 3 of Regulation VIII of 1819 gives him the power to do so), the subordinate tenure-holder must perform the duties imposed upon the putnidar himself by the lease. It does not contain even the implication of a permission, assuming that the putni pottah contains a counterpart of the clause. 3. There is some evidence to show that the proprietor knew of the creation of the sub-tenure and accepted the rent of the putni taluk through the sub-tenure-holder: but this is not sufficient to constitute the sub-tenure a protected interest within the meaning of sec. 160. 4. The second question relates to procedure under sec. 167 of the Act. The written application for service of notice was made to the Collector of Nuddea as prescribed by the first clause of the section. According to the practice which prevails in the Collectorate of Nuddea, the application was received by a Deputy Collector in charge. 160. 4. The second question relates to procedure under sec. 167 of the Act. The written application for service of notice was made to the Collector of Nuddea as prescribed by the first clause of the section. According to the practice which prevails in the Collectorate of Nuddea, the application was received by a Deputy Collector in charge. Notice was thereafter issued from the Collectorate as prescribed by the third clause of the section and there is no question but that the notice was duly served in compliance with the Act. The application when presented was sealed with the Collectorate seal, and the notice was also sealed with the Collector's seal, though it was signed by a Deputy Collector "for the Collector." The provisions of the Act were complied with: the applicant did all that the law required him to do. The Collectorate was merely the medium for service, and the officers in charge caused the notice to be served in the manner prescribed by the rules. There was no illegality or irregularity. We agree with the observations of the Court on this point in Akhaya Coomar Soor v. Bejoy Chand Mahatap ILR 29 Cal. 813 (1902). 5. We are unable to accept the view of the Appellant that the proceedings were either illegal or irregular because the Collector did not personally receive the petition, or personally cause the notice to be served. Having regard to the many and multifarious duties of the Collector, it is impracticable that he could personally attend to such details, and the fact that both the application and the notice bear the seal of the Collectorate are, to our minds, sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the application was presented to the Collector, and that he caused the notice to be served within the meaning of sec. 167. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.