JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Opposite party No. 4 was the tenant under the Petitioners who are landlords. They obtained an order of eviction against opposite party No. 4 on 25th March 1963 from the House Rent Controller which was upheld in appeal. In an execution case before the Munsif, opposite parties 1 to 3 filed an objection that they were sub-tenants under opposite party No. 4 and were not evictable from the disputed house as they were not parties to the proceedings before the House Rent Controller. They also led a suit before the Munsif, Cuttack, for a permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners from enforcing the eviction order: In the suit the learned Munsif issued an interim injunction against the Petitioners on- 29th February 1964. An appeal by the Petitioners before a Subordinate Judge failed. Against the appellate order this revision has been filed. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Mohanty is that opposite parties 1 to 3 were not sub tenants of the disputed house with the written consent of the landlords. Assuming that they were inducted as sub-tenants by opposite party No. 4, no jural relationship was created between the laldlords and the sub-tenants, and as such, they are not entitled to resist the eviction, asked for, by the landlords in the execution case. In my view, the contention is well founded and must prevail. 3. Two questions need consideration in this regard (i) Whether the sub-tenants of a tenant come within the definition of a tenant; and (ii) If sub-tenants are inducted by a tenant without the written consent of the landlord, whether such sub-tenant are necessary parties in a proceeding before the House Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant by the landlord. 4. In Madanlal Joshi v. Chhapolia 29 C.L.T. 435 this Court had made the following observation- The definition of 'landlord' is not exhaustive while that of a 'tenant' is exhaustive. Every person who from time to time derives title under a tenant comes within the definition of 'tenant'. This wide definition has been given to those persons, inducted as sub tenants, may not take a defence for continuance of possession even though an order for ejectment is passed against the tenant. On these definitions there can be no doubt that a 'sub-tenant' is included in the definition of a 'tenant'. This wide definition has been given to those persons, inducted as sub tenants, may not take a defence for continuance of possession even though an order for ejectment is passed against the tenant. On these definitions there can be no doubt that a 'sub-tenant' is included in the definition of a 'tenant'. This observation was made in a different context and needs further clarification in the background of Section 7(1)(ii)(a) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It lays down Section 7(1) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the application is satisfied (ii) that the tenant has without the writ consent of the landlord (a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire house or any portion thereof (if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so); the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house and if the Controller is not satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application. It would be apparent from the aforesaid section that if a tenant inacts a sub-tenant without the written consent of the landlord, he becomes evictable on that ground alone. The section has made distinction between sub-tenants inducted with and without the written consent of the landlord. A sub-tenant inducted without the written consent of the landlord is not at cognised by the Act. In fact, induction of such a tenant gives the landlord a right for eviction. He cannot be a necessary party in a proceeding for eviction under the Act. If, however, a sub-tenant has been inducted by a tenant with the written consent of the landlord, the sub-tenant is not evictable in execution of an order for eviction passed in favour of the landlord against the tenant to which the sub-tenant is not a party. 5. An identical view has been taken by a Bench of the Patna High Court in Suresh Mohan Thakur Vs. Shamal Mall Bubna. 5. An identical view has been taken by a Bench of the Patna High Court in Suresh Mohan Thakur Vs. Shamal Mall Bubna. In paragraph 34 of the judgment, their Lordships observed - The order of the Executing Court further shows that the Appellant was found to be a sub-lessee of the tenant, Paramananda Jha, and not a tenant under an agreement from the landlord himself as alleged by him. It was conceded by the learned Government Advocate that if the Appellant was a sub-lessee from the tenant against whom the order for eviction had been passed, then he was also liable to be evicted. Same review has been taken by the Supreme Court in Rup Chand Gupta Vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited and Another, ., on general principle without reference to any statutory provisions. 6. On the aforesaid discussions I am satisfied that opposite parties 1 to 3 (Hari Sukla, Saikh Hasan and Nizmat Khan) are not entitled to resist the eviction in the execution proceeding and their suit for permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed. The Courts below conceived the legal position. The order passed by them granting interim injunction is t aside. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed, but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed