JUDGMENT 1. UNDER a deed of lease, dated October 25, 1950, between Messrs. Haralal Harendra Lal Roy Estate Ltd. (now in liquidation) and Ghanashyamdas Loyalka (since deceased) the latter became a lessee under the former in respect of premises Nos. 35 Ripon Street and 36. Ripon Lane. Calcutta, for a period of 15 years commencing from the 1st October, 1950. The monthly rent payable under the lease was Rs. 925/-, for the first 10 years and thereafter Rs. 1025/-for the remainder of the period under the said lease. 2. THE lessee Ghanashyamdas Loyalka granted a sub-lease in respect of the lease-hold premises in favour of Messrs. Frank Ross and Company Ltd. for a period of 14 years 11 months and 16 days commencing from October 12, 1950 at a rental of Rs. 2000/- per month. On June 27, 1956, Messrs. Frank Ross and Company Ltd., Opposite Party No. 1 herein filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller of Calcutta, under section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for being declared a tenant directly under the superior landlord Haralal harendralal Roy Estate Limited (in liquidation) and for having a fair rent fixed in respect of the sub-tenancy. In the said application the superior landlord Company then vested in the Official Liquidator, and Ghanashyamdas Loyalka were both made parties. 3. THE application was not opposed by the Official Liquidator who did not take part in the proceedings under section 16 (3) started at the instance of the sub-tenant. The sole contest was by the tenant who, interalia, contended as follows:- (a) The application was not maintainable and was in particular hit by section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. (b) That he had the consent of the landlord to sublet. In support of the contention that he bad the consent of the landlord to sublet, the tenant adduced verbal evidence of witnesses and also tendered in evidence a document (Exhibit 'b') purporting to contain the permission on behalf of the landlord, to sublet. 4. THE Controller did not accept the evidence tendered on behalf of the tenant to the effect that he had consent of the landlord to sublet, either verbally or in writing. 4. THE Controller did not accept the evidence tendered on behalf of the tenant to the effect that he had consent of the landlord to sublet, either verbally or in writing. He also held that the provision of section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 could not be attracted to the instant case because, in his opinion, premises held under a lease for a period exceeding 15 years would have the benefit of the said section and not premises held under a lease for 15 years. In the view that he took, the Controller allowed the sub-tenant's application by his order dated January 18, 1957 and declared him to be a tenant directly under the superior landlord. Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated August 28, 1957 he fixed the fair rent for the upgraded sub-tenancy at Rs. 611/5/3 ps. per month. Since the sub-tenancy was co-extensive with the tenancy, the tenant's interest in the entirety of the tenancy ceased. So far as the superior landlord was concerned, it suffered pecuniary loss, because in place of the monthly rent of Rs. 925/-, which it was getting from the tenant, the rent was reduced to Rs. 611/5/3 ps. per month. The tenant appealed against the final order passed by the Controller. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on a two-fold ground. He held in the first place that as no appeal had been preferred against the final order dated January 18, 1957, declaring the sub-tenant to be a direct tenant under the landlord, no question must be allowed to be raised, in the appeal against the later order fixing the rent, challenging the said declaration. The appellate authority came to the aforesaid conclusion relying on a decision reported in 1959 C. L. J. 117 (1) (Asutosh Chakravartti v. Sm. Rani Sundari Devi). In the second place he held that even though the lease between the landlord and tenant was protected from the effects of section 16 (3) of the Act, being a lease for a period of 15 years, the lease between the tenant and the sub-tenant, being for a period less than 15i years, was not so protected and, therefore, the sub-tenant was entitled to get the benefit of section 16 (3) of the Act. In our opinion the appellate authority is wrong in both his conclusions. 5. In our opinion the appellate authority is wrong in both his conclusions. 5. DISSENTING from the case relied upon by the appellate authority, it has been held in a later decision reported in. 64 C. W. N. 938 (2) (Anil Kumar Mukherjee v. Malin Kumar Mazumder) that the making of the declaration is, no doubt, the determination of one of the cardinal points in dispute but that order alone does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties and hence does not become a final order so long as the fixation of rent of the sub-tenant or rents of the tenant and the sub-tenant remains or remain pending and no appeal can be taken against such an order. We, therefore, hold that the appellate authority was wrong in holding that the facts concluded by the earlier order of the Controller, declaring the sub-tenant to be a direct tenant under the superior landlord, were incapable of being agitated or challenged in the appeal against the final order fixing the rent, 6. THE appellate authority was equally wrong in its view, about the effect of section 3 on section 16 (3) of the Act. Section 3 is to the following effect:- "sec. 3.-The provisions relating to rent and the provisions of sections 31 and 36 shall apply to any premises held under a lease for residential purpose of the lessee himself and registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, where- (a) such lease has been entered into on or after the 1st December, 1948, and (b) such lease is for a period of not more than 20 years, and save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises held under a lease for a period of not less than 15 years," The lease between the superior landlord and tenant was not for residential purpose. The lease itself recited as follows:- "the lessors do hereby demise and lease unto the lessee All those to several message tenement and dwelling house known as premises no. The lease itself recited as follows:- "the lessors do hereby demise and lease unto the lessee All those to several message tenement and dwelling house known as premises no. 35, Ripon Street and 36, Ripon Lane with full and free right, liberty and authority for the lessee to construct and set up factory and structures and other conveniences on the demised land, other than the main building and generally to use and enjoy the demised premises and any part thereof for the purposes of the business of the lessee and factory and work ships and residence and to carry on the lessee's business and any other business ancillary thereto. " 7. THEREFORE, the last part of section 3 of the Act was applicable to the lease and nothing in the said Act was to have any effect on the lease inasmuch as the lease was "for a period of not less than 15 years. " section 16 (3) of the Act, if applicable to the tenant's lease with the superior landlord, may have a destructive effect on the said lease. The subtenant's lease is, in the instant case, co-extensive with that of the tenant, in so far as the premises covered by the lease is concerned. If the subtenant is to be declared a direct tenant under the superior landlord, under section 16 (3) of the Act that would mean cessation of the intermediate tenancy and an end of the lease between the superior landlord Haralal Harendralal Roy Estate Limited (in liquidation) and the tenant Ghanashyamdas (now Luxmi Devi Loyalka). Even if the sub-tenant's interest had not been coextensive with that of the tenant, even then the tenant's interest would have ceased in so much of the tenancy as might have been sub-let if section 16 (3) of the Act would apply. Merely because the sub-tenant's lease is for a period less than 15 years, that should not make any difference in the position of a tenant, holding under a lease for a period not less than 15 years. Section 3 gives complete protection to such leases from the effects of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act including the effects under section 16 (3) of the said Act. It is not possible to give relief to the sub-tenant without affecting the tenant. Section 3 gives complete protection to such leases from the effects of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act including the effects under section 16 (3) of the said Act. It is not possible to give relief to the sub-tenant without affecting the tenant. Since a tenant holding under a lease for a period of not less than 15 years cannot be affected by an order under section 16 (3), no relief can be given to the sub-tenant. The sub-tenant loses his statutory remedy under section 16 (3) of the Act because of the immunity of the tenant from the effects of the section, on account of the protection under section 3 of the Act. Where the statutory immunity of the tenant defeats the statutory remedy of the sub-tenant, the sub-tenant has to suffer. In the view that we take, we make the Rule absolute, set aside the order; made both by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller and dismiss the sub-tenant's application under section 16 (3) of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.