JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order and decision of the Controller under section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The disputed premises is a defined space for a wall-almirah on the ground floor of the building at No. 220, Upper Circular Road, Calcutta. It is common case before us that Biswanath Pal is the owner of the premises, Satinath Kundu is the tenant of the first degree, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. is the tenant of the second degree, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores is the tenant of the third degree and Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey are the joint tenants of the fourth degree. All these tenancies were created before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The tenants of the fourth degree, Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey, gave a notice to the owner landlord Biswanath Pal purporting to be a notice under sec. 16 (2) of the Act of the subletting in their favour. Within two months of the receipt of this notice by Biswanath Pal, Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey commenced proceedings before the Controller under sec. 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, praying for an order that they be declared direct tenants under Biswanath Pal and for a further order declaring that the tenancies of Satinath Kundu, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. and Paresh Nath Cloth Stores have ceased. To this proceeding they impleaded and joined as parties Biswanath Pal, Satinath Kundu and Paresh Nath Cloth Stores. Subsequently they amended the petition by adding Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. as party. Before the Controller an employee of Biswanath was called and he on behalf of Biswanath denied that Biswanath ever gave consent to sublet. On July 8, 1957 the Controller decided that Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey were entitled to reliefs prayed for and as provided in sec. 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 but as the petitioners had prayed for fixation of fair rent also, he directed the Inspector to go to the locality and take necessary measurements of the disputed premises and of other similar premises and to submit a report by the 4th of September 1957. Aggrieved by this decision, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores, instead of filing an appeal under sec. Aggrieved by this decision, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores, instead of filing an appeal under sec. 29 of the Act, have moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. MR. Banerjee on behalf of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores contends (a) that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 does not entitle Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey to be declared direct tenants under the owner Biswanath Pal by elimination of the interests of all the intermediate tenants; (b) that in relation to the sub-tenants Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey, the tenant who sublet to them and whose interest could be eliminated on their application is Paresh Nath Cloth Stores; (c) that the landlord of the tenant who sublet is Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. to whom only those sub-tenants could give notice of the sub-letting under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 and whose direct tenant, they could be declared in properly constituted proceedings; (d) and that they were not entitled to the elimination of the interest of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores as they have not asked for such an order and as the requisite notice bad not been given to Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. and also inasmuch as Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. did not deny that they gave oral consent to the sub-letting. Mr. Roy Chowdhury on behalf of Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey disputes these contentions. Mr. Roy Chowdhury contends that the expression "landlord" in sec. 16 means the owner, that the expression "tenant" means every intermediate tenant and that the expression "every sub-tenant" means the last inferior tenant in occupation of the premises and that his clients were therefore entitled to give the notice of the sub-letting to Biswanath and to ask for an order declaring them to be direct tenants under Biswanath upon eliminating the interests of all the intermediate tenants. 3. THE question in issue must be answered with reference to and upon the two constructions of sec. 3. THE question in issue must be answered with reference to and upon the two constructions of sec. 16 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which is as follows:- "16 (1)- Where after the commencement of this Act, any premises are sub-let either in whole or in part by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, the tenant and every subtenant to whom the premises are sub-let shall give notice to the landlord in the prescribed manner of the creation of the sub-tenancy within one month from the date of such sub-letting and shall in the prescribed manner notify the termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination. (2) Where before the commencement of this Act, the tenant, with or without the consent of the landlord, has sub-let any premises either in whole or in part, the tenant and every sub-tenant to whom the premises have been sub-let shall give notice to the landlord of such sub-letting in the prescribed manner within six months of the commencement of this Act and shall in the prescribed manner notify the termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination. (3) Where in any case mentioned in sub-section (2) there is no consent in writing of the landlord and the landlord denies that he gave oral consent, the Controller shall, on an application made to him in this behalf either by the landlord or the sub-tenant within two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of sub-letting by the landlord or the issue of the notice by the sub-tenant, as the case may be, by order declare that the tenant's interest in so much of the premises as has been sub-let shall cease and that the sub-tenant shall become a tenant directly under the landlord from the date of the order. The Controller shall also fix the rents payable by the tenant and such sub-tenant to the landlord from the date of the order. Rents so fixed shall be deemed to be fair rent for purposes of this Act." 4. BOTH sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. The Controller shall also fix the rents payable by the tenant and such sub-tenant to the landlord from the date of the order. Rents so fixed shall be deemed to be fair rent for purposes of this Act." 4. BOTH sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. 16 impose obligation upon the tenant who has sub-let any premises either in whole or in part and upon every sub-tenant to whom the premises are so sub-let to give notice of the subletting to the landlord in the prescribed manner and within the specified time. Sub-sec. (1) imposes the obligation in respect of post-Act sub-lettings with the previous consent in writing of the landlord whereas sub-sec. (2) imposes the obligation in respect of pre-Act sub-lettings with or without the consent of the landlord. By sub-sec. (5) of sec. 30 failure to give the required notice under sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec 16 is made punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. The sub-tenants giving the notices under sec. 16 are by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 13 required to be made parties to suit or proceeding for the recovery of possession of the premises by the landlord, against the tenant. Previously, landlords seeking to execute decrees for ejectment obtained by them against tenants used to be defeated and delayed by false allegations of sub-tenancies. The object of these provisions is to prevent this mischief and at the same time to safe-guard the interests of genuine sub-tenants. Where the owner of the premises has let the premises to some person who in his turn has sub-let the premises, either in whole or in part, it is plain that the owner is the landlord, the person to whom the premises is let is the tenant and the person or persons to whom the premises are sub-let are the sub-tenants. In other words, the tenant of the first degree is the tenant and the tenants of the second degree are the sub-tenants. 5. NOW there may be tenancies of still more inferior degrees such as tenancies of the third degree, tenancies of the fourth degree and so on. The question is-who in such cases are the landlord, the tenant and the sub-tenants for the purposes of receiving or giving notices of the sub-letting under sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. 16. Sec. 2 (d) defines landlord and sec. 2 (h) defines tenant. The question is-who in such cases are the landlord, the tenant and the sub-tenants for the purposes of receiving or giving notices of the sub-letting under sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. 16. Sec. 2 (d) defines landlord and sec. 2 (h) defines tenant. The Act does not define subtenant. In the context of sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. 16 a sub-tenant is a person to whom the premises have been sub-let either in whole or in part by the tenant. The sub-letting in respect of which the notice is to be given must be looked at for the purposes of determining the landlord by whom the notice is to be received and the tenant and the sub-tenant by whom the notice is to be given. The sub-tenant is the person to whom and the tenant is the person by whom such sub-letting was made. The landlord is the person who for the time being is entitled to receive the rent from the tenant. Where there is a succession of sub-lettings and there are tenancies of different degrees, an intermediate tenant may in his turn be a landlord and in such a case the person from whom he is entitled to receive rent is the tenant and the person to whom the tenant in his turn sub-lets is the subtenant. Thus, in this case, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd., is a tenant of the second degree, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores is a tenant of the third degree and Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey are tenants of the fourth degree; but for the purposes of giving and receiving notice of the sub-letting to Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. is the landlord, Paresh Nath Cloth Stores is the tenant and Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey are the sub-tenants. Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 applies to a case mentioned in sub-sec. (2), that is to say, to the case of a pre-Act subletting of which notice has been given in accordance with sub-sec. (2 ). In such a case the Controller is empowered and enjoined on a proper application to declare that the tenant's interest in so much of the premises and as has been sub-let shall cease and the sub-tenant shall become a tenant directly under the landlord. (2 ). In such a case the Controller is empowered and enjoined on a proper application to declare that the tenant's interest in so much of the premises and as has been sub-let shall cease and the sub-tenant shall become a tenant directly under the landlord. The object of the sub-section is to eliminate the interest of the middle-man tenant on the application of either the landlord or the subtenant. 6. WE are of the opinion that the expressions-landlord, tenant and subtenant in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16- should receive the same meaning which they have in sub-sec. (2). The subtenant and the tenant are the immediate parties to the sub-letting of which notice is given under sub-sec. (2 ). The landlord is the person who for the time being is entitled to receive rent from the tenant. Section 16 contemplates three sets of parties, namely, the landlord, his immediate tenant and every sub-tenant to whom the tenant has sub-let. A superior landlord who is not the immediate landlord of the tenant is not the landlord to whom the notice of subletting can be given. Similarly a superior intermediate tenant who is not a party to the sub-letting is not bound to give the notice of the sub-letting and his interest cannot be declared to cease on the application of a sub-tenant to whom he has sub-let. We are unable to hold that the expression tenant in sec. 16 means every intermediate tenant. On the face of the section, the expression tenant refers to the tenant who has sublet, that is to say, who is a party to the sub-letting of which notice is to be given. There is no warrant for holding that a superior tenant who is not a party to the sub-letting is to be visited with penal consequences for not giving notice of the sub-letting of which he may not even be aware. 7. WE are also unable to hold that the landlord means the owner of the premises even though the owner is not the landlord of the tenant who sub-let. In its ordinary meaning the expression landlord means the immediate landlord of the tenant. The owner of the premises is not necessarily the landlord. The landlord and the owner of the premises may be entirely different persons. In its ordinary meaning the expression landlord means the immediate landlord of the tenant. The owner of the premises is not necessarily the landlord. The landlord and the owner of the premises may be entirely different persons. Where the Legislature intends to refer to the owner of the premises, who is not the landlord, it expressly says so as in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 36. Similarly where by the expression, landlord, the Legislature meant the landlord of a tenant of the first degree, it expressly said so as in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. 8. WE are also unable to hold that the expression "sub-tenant" in sec. 16 means the last inferior tenant in occupation of the premises even though he is not a party to the sub-letting of which notice is to be given under sub-sections (1) and (2). The sub-tenants are the persons to whom the premises have been sub-let either in whole or in part by the tenant. From the point of view of the landlord, his tenant's immediate tenants are his sub-tenants. The tenants inferior to his sub-tenants not having been let in by his tenant are not his sub-tenants. We think that the expression "subtenant" is used in this sense in sec. 16 and also in sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of sec. 13. The sub-tenants of the landlord are immediate tenants of his tenant. Subordinate holders below the sub-tenants do not become the direct tenants of the landlord on the passing of a decree for ejectment against the tenant and the sub-tenants and are bound by the decree for ejectment on general principles apart from the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 13. 9. LOOKING at Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey as sub-tenants neither Satinath Kundu nor Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. can be said to be tenants who have sub-let the premises to Nityanada Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey nor can Biswanath be said to be the landlord of the tenant who sub-let the premises to them. Notice of the subletting could not therefore be given to Biswanath under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 nor could Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey obtain a declaration that they are direct tenants under Biswanath by eliminating all the intermediate interests. 10. MR. Notice of the subletting could not therefore be given to Biswanath under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 nor could Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey obtain a declaration that they are direct tenants under Biswanath by eliminating all the intermediate interests. 10. MR. Roy Chowdhury argued that he could ask for elimination of all the intermediate interests in one proceeding because nothing could prevent his clients from launching successive proceedings and from asking for successive elimination of each one of the intermediate interests. We are unable to accept this contention. Supposing that his clients after obtaining an order for elimination of the interest of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores commenced fresh proceedings for the elimination of the interest of Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd., his clients could not possibly succeed in such proceedings. On the assumption that his clients had in previous proceedings, obtained an order for the elimination of the interest of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores, his clients would become the direct tenants of Mahaluxmi Bank ltd., for the first time after the commencement of the Act. Consequently on the assumption mentioned above the Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. could not be said to have sub-let the premises to Mr. Roy Chowdhury's clients before the commencement of the Act. In such circumstances the Controller could not declare that the interest of Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. in the premises should cease, for under sub-section (3) of sec. 16 the Controller could make such a declaration only in respect of the interest of a tenant who had sub-let the premises before the commencement of the Act. In properly instituted proceedings Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey could ask for an order that the interest of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores should cease and that they should become direct tenants under Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. Mr. Lala contended that they are not entitled even to such an order. He argued that the expressions "landlord", "tenant" and "sub-tenant" in sec. 16 refer to the owner of the premises, the tenant of the first degree and the tenant of the second degree respectively and that remote tenants are not within the purview of sec. 16. We are unable to accept this contention. We do not think that the expressions, landlord and tenant, have such narrow meanings either in sec. 16 or in other sections of the Act. Thus sec. 16. We are unable to accept this contention. We do not think that the expressions, landlord and tenant, have such narrow meanings either in sec. 16 or in other sections of the Act. Thus sec. 14 prohibits not only sub-letting by a tenant of the first degree without the consent of the owner but also sub-letting by a tenant of an inferior degree without the requisite consent of his landlord. Similarly sec. 13 gives not only protection to a tenant of the first degree against eviction by the owner but also protection to a tenant of an inferior degree against eviction by his landlord. Again sec. 10 enables an application for fixation of fair rent not only by the owner and the tenant of the first degree but also by a tenant of inferior degree and his landlord. 11. BUT in the circumstances of the case, Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey are not even entitled to ask for an order that the interest of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores should cease. The following conditions must be satisfied in order that the Controller may declare that the interest of a tenant shall cease:- (a) the tenant has before the commencement of the Act sub-let the premises either in whole or in part; (b) notice of the sub-letting is given to the landlord either by the tenant or by the sub-tenant in the prescribed manner and within the time specified; (c) the landlord denies that he gave oral consent; (d) an application is made to the Controller either by the landlord or by the sub-tenant within the time specified. 12. IN this case, Nityananda Pal and Chandra Sekhar Pandey have asked that they should be declared tenants directly under the owner Biswanath. They have not asked that they should be declared tenants directly under Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. Even, if they asked for the latter order they could not succeed in these proceedings. Notice of the sub-letting was not given to the landlord Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. Nor did Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. deny that they gave oral consent. In these circumstances, they are not entitled to an order that they should be declared tenants directly under Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. We have come to the conclusion that the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power of the Controller to make an order under sub-section (3) of section 16 have not been fulfilled. In these circumstances, they are not entitled to an order that they should be declared tenants directly under Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. We have come to the conclusion that the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power of the Controller to make an order under sub-section (3) of section 16 have not been fulfilled. In the circumstances of the case the Controller had no jurisdiction to make the order prayed for. In making the impugned order the Controller has exercised a jurisdiction which by law is not vested in him. We have therefore come to the conclusion that we should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution and set aside the impugned order. Before concluding the judgment, we are however, bound to notice certain other arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. 13. MR. Banerjee contended that the Controller should have adjourned the proceedings in view of certain pending litigations in which the relationship of landlord and tenant between several parties was in issue. We do not accept this contention. It does not appear that the Controller was requested by any of the parties to adjourn the proceedings. 14. MR. Banerjee also contended that even assuming that Biswanath is the landlord, it is not proved that Biswanath did not give oral consent and as such on this limited ground alone the application under sub-sec. (3) of section 16 should have been dismissed. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that the employee of Biswanath who gave evidence could not prove that in fact Biswanath had not given oral consent. The witness was however duly authorised by Biswanath to state that Biswanath did not give oral consent. In our opinion a simple denial by the landlord or his authorised agent that he gave oral consent is sufficient. It is not necessary further to prove that in fact the landlord did not give such consent. Mr. Lala on behalf of Paresh Nath Cloth Stores argued that the denial of the landlord must take place before proceedings under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 are commenced. We are unable to accept this contention. It is not obligatory upon the landlord to give an answer to the notice of sub-letting given to him. The landlord may neither deny nor assert that he gave oral consent before the time prescribed for in making the application under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 has expired. 16 are commenced. We are unable to accept this contention. It is not obligatory upon the landlord to give an answer to the notice of sub-letting given to him. The landlord may neither deny nor assert that he gave oral consent before the time prescribed for in making the application under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 has expired. In our opinion, where the other requisite conditions are fulfilled, a denial by the landlord before the Controller in course of the proceedings under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 is sufficient to enable the Controller to make the declaration mentioned in that sub-section. 15. MR. Roy Chowdhury argued that the impugned order dated 8th July 1957 is appealable under sec. 29 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the alternative remedy being available this Court ought not to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. In Ashutosh Chakraborty v. Sm. Rani Sundari Devi and ors. (1) 1959 C. L. J. 117, an order deciding that the sub-tenant was entitled to relief under sub-section (3) of sec. 16 in respect of a portion only of the disputed premises and that the remaining portion was outside the sub-tenancy was held to be a final order appealable under sec. 29 on the ground that the adjudication conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to one of the cardinal matters in controversy. In Jetmull Bhojraj v. M. L. Sukhani, (2) 62 C. W. N. 314 at 316 an order was passed deciding that the petitioner sub-tenant was entitled to the reliefs contemplated by sec. 16 (3) and directing the Inspector to go to the locality and take necessary measurements and submit a report. The order was similar to the order dated the 8th July, 1957 passed in this case. It was held that the interest of the tenant had ceased to exist as from the date of the order. It seems therefore that the order dated the 8th July, 1957 of its own force finally terminated all the intermediate interests. Proceedings under sec. 16 (3) consist of two parts. In course of the proceedings the Controller can make substantive declaration and can also fix rents. The order finally put an end to the proceedings so far as it related to the declaration asked for. It is therefore arguable that the order is a final order and as such appealable under sec. 16 (3) consist of two parts. In course of the proceedings the Controller can make substantive declaration and can also fix rents. The order finally put an end to the proceedings so far as it related to the declaration asked for. It is therefore arguable that the order is a final order and as such appealable under sec. 29 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. But we desire not to express a final opinion on this question. Assuming that an appeal lay from the order, the existence of the alternative remedy by way of appeal is not a bar to the exercise of our power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this case the absence of jurisdiction of the Controller to entertain the proceedings and to make the declaration asked for is patent on the face of the record. We are satisfied that in a case of this kind we should interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. We pass the following order: 16. THE impugned order and decision of the Rent Controller dated July 8, 1957 is set aside. We further direct that the application made by Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey before the Rent Controller under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 16 of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956 be dismissed and that Case No. 787a of 1956 ( S. R.) before the Rent Controller be disposed of accordingly. The Opposite Parties Nityananda Pal and Chandrasekhar Pandey shall pay to the Paresh Nath Cloth Stores, the petitioners before us, the costs of this application. We assess the hearing fee at 3 G. M. s. There will be no order as to costs of the other parties.