JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs, who were sub-tenants, were entitled to remain in occupation of the disputed premises as direct tenants under respondent No. 1 on the same terms and conditions existing between them and the tenant, respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 is the superior land-lord. Respondent no. 2 was the tenant under her and the plaintiffs appellants claimed to be sub-tenants under respondent no. 2. 2. IN the suit, there was also a prayer for a permanent injunction, restraining respondent no. 1 from taking possesion or in any way disturbing the appellants possession by executing the decree for ejectment, obtained by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2. The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. 3. THERE is no dispute that the appellants (plaintiffs) were sub-tenants in respect, of the disputed premises under respondent no. 3 who was the tenant under respondent no. 1 (landlord. There is also no dispute that the appellants did not serve any notice of their sub-tenancy under sec. 16 (2) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on respondent No. 1 (landlard. Because of the absence of this notice, the learned trial Judge has had that respondent no. 1 was not bound to implead, in her suit for ejectment against respondent no. 2, the present plaintiffs appellants and that the decree, obtaiined by the landlord (respondent no. 1)against the tenant (respondent no,. 2)was executable also against the subtenants (plaintiffs-appellants. 4. BEFORE us, the above view of the learned trial Judge has been assailed by Mr. Das, who appears in support of this appeal. His contention is that, as the instant case was a case of ejectment on the ground of the landlord's reasonable requirement of the dispused premises under clause (f) of sub-section (1)of Sec. 13 of the above Act, the plaintiffs appellants, who were subtenants, were entitled to be impleaded notwithstanding the fact that they had given no notice to the landlord (respondent no. 1) under sec. 16 (2) of the above Act. In other words, Mr. Das's contention is that, once it is held that the plaintiffs appellants were sub-tenants, the landlord (respondent no. "1)was bound to implead them in her still for ejectment against the tenant (respondent no. 1) under sec. 16 (2) of the above Act. In other words, Mr. Das's contention is that, once it is held that the plaintiffs appellants were sub-tenants, the landlord (respondent no. "1)was bound to implead them in her still for ejectment against the tenant (respondent no. 2)on the ground of reasonable requirement of the disputed, premises under Sec. 13 (1) (f)notwithstanding non-service of any notice under sec. 16 (2) by the plaintiffs appellants. For this proposition, Mr. Das relies on Sec. 13, sub-sections (2), (3)and (4) and, in particular, upon the latter two sub-sections. In substance, Mr. Das's contention is that the first part of sub-section (2), which provides for the impleading of only those sub-tenants, who have given notice under sec. 16 (2), has no reference to and no connection with sub- section (4), which stands independently and, under which, all subtenants whether they have given the above notice or not, will have to be impleaded. if the landlord wants a decree under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13, as mentioned in the said sub-section (4. Mr. Das seeks to reinforce this submission by reference to the language of sub-section (3), which provide does that "save as provided in sub-section (2) and sub-seciton (4), a decree or order for the delivery of possession of any premises shall be binding on every sub-tenant. " on this provision, he contends that, in a case, falling under sub-section (4), the decree or order for delivery of possession of any premises could not be binding on any sub-tenant except as provided therein and in cases falling under sub-section (2), the decree or order will not be binding on a subtenant except as under the said sub-section. The substance of his submission is that the provision for impleading sub-tenants as provided in the first of sub-section (2) has reference to cases other than cases coming under sub-section (4) or, in other words, to case other than cases of ejectment order clause (f) of sub-section (1), We are unable to accept this contention. On a reasonable construction the first part of sub-section (2)should be held to be the only provision which entitles a sub-tenant to be impleaded in a suit for ejectment by the landlord on any of the clauses including clause (f) of sec. 13, sub-section (1. On a reasonable construction the first part of sub-section (2)should be held to be the only provision which entitles a sub-tenant to be impleaded in a suit for ejectment by the landlord on any of the clauses including clause (f) of sec. 13, sub-section (1. Sub-section (4) obviously refers to the case of a sub-tenant who has been impleaded in the suit, or, in other words, whom it is necessary to implead in the suit lor ejectment, as the sub-section clearly contemplates agreement by the particular sub-tenant, which would be impossible unless the said sub-tenant is a partly to the suit. On a reference to the language of of sub-section (2)first part, it is obvious that the said language is general and applies to all suits for ejectment under any of the clauses of sec. 13 (1), This is confirmed by the proviso to sub-section (2), where there is reference to clause (f) also, which indicates that the earlier part of that sub-section has also reference to that clause. The proviso grants certain protection to the sub-tenant except in cases of clause (f) or (g) of sub-section (1)and sub-section (4) only supplements it by providing for protection to the sub-tenant in a case under clause (f)also. In other words, the proviso to sub-section (2) and sub-section (4)must be read as complementary or as supplementing each other in the maiicr of protection to sub-tenants and it is this aspect of the matter, which is referred to sub-section (3), where reference is m-ide therein to sub-section (2)and sub-section (4. Neither the proviso to sub-section (2) nor sub-suction (4) has iiny bearing on the question as to which, if any, of the sub-tenants are to be impleaded. 5. IT is to be remembered in this connection that, under the general law, no sub-tenant is to be impleaded in a suit for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant and the only exception to this general law is to be found in the first part of sub-section (2), which provides that sub-tenants, who have given notice under sec. 16 (2) of the Act, are to be impleaded in suits for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant. 16 (2) of the Act, are to be impleaded in suits for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant. As we have already said, sub-section (4) refers only to cases of a sub-tenant who has to be impleaded in a suit for ejectment and such a subtenatn in the view, which we have expressed above, must be a sub-tenant, coming under the first part of sub-section (2): which is the only provision under which sub-tenants are entitled to be impleaded in suits for ejectment by the landlords against the tenants. We, accordingly, hold that sub-section (4)cannot be read independently of the first part of sub-section (2) and, accordingly, no sub-tenant, who has not given notice under sec. 3. 6 (2), will come under it or can claim the protection under the said sub-section (4. 6. IN the above view, we hold that the plaintiff? appellants were not necessary parties to the suit for ejectment, in which the impugned decree for ejectment was obtained by respondent no. 1 against, respondent no. 2. and, accordingly, they are not entitled to make any grivience against the said decree and cannot get a declaration of their right to remain in the disputed premises in state of the said decree or a permanent junction, restraining respondent no. 1 (landlord) from executing the said detrue against them to oust them from such possession, We have sufficiently explained why the decision in the instant case should go against the appellants but, by way of further clarification, we may add the following: 7. AS we have said above, so far as the present point is concerned, the relevant provisions are sub-secs. (2), (3) and (4) of Sec. 13 of the above Act, and, under them, the relative scheme of the statute starts by providing for impleading of certain sub-tenants, to wit, sub-tenants, who have given notice under sec. 16 (2), in suits for ejectment by landlords against tenants upon all the grounds, permissible under the statute, as indicated by the reference to the same in the proviso to sub-section (2) of sec. 13. That proviso, on its language, is comprehensive in this respect and, obviously, refers to all the closes of sec. 16 (2), in suits for ejectment by landlords against tenants upon all the grounds, permissible under the statute, as indicated by the reference to the same in the proviso to sub-section (2) of sec. 13. That proviso, on its language, is comprehensive in this respect and, obviously, refers to all the closes of sec. 13 (1) and thus apples to all suits for ejectment, coming under the Act, The statute then provides, in the said proviso, a limited protection in favour of sub-tenants, or, more precisely, such sub-tenants as are to be impleaded as aforesaid, this protection, however, not extending to cases. covered by clauses (f) and (g) of 13 (1), as expressly mentioned in the proviso in question. From sub-sec. (2. read as a whole including its proviso, it is thus fairly clear that, even in a case under clause (f) of sec, 13 (1), the only sub-tenant who is entitled to PC impleaded is one, who has given notice under sec. 16 (2), but even such a subtenant would have no protection in such a case under the said sub-sec. (2), or, for the matter of that, under its proviso, to be more precise. Sub-sec. (4)then enacts that, even in a case under sec. 13 (1) (f), a sub-tenant, that is, a sub-tenant, who agrees to an order under the said sub-sec. (4) and is thus a party to the suit, or, in other woods, one who has a right to be impleaded.-and that takes us to sub-sec. (2) and points to a sub-tenant, who has given notice under sec. 16 (2)-will be entitled to the limited protection, as provided in the said sub-sec. (4), and thus will not be without any protection in spite of the absence of any protective safeguard in his case in the earlier provision, namely, the proviso to sub-sec. (2) ; and sub-sec. (3) only affirms and emphasises the above protections, that is, in favour of the sub-tenants, eligible for tha same under sub-sec. (2), or, in other words,subtenants,who have given notice under sec. 16 (2), the relative or relevant protective provisions being contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (2) in cases other than under clauses (f) and (g), raid in sub-ssc. (4)in cases under clause (f), there being no protection in a case under clause (g. 8. (2), or, in other words,subtenants,who have given notice under sec. 16 (2), the relative or relevant protective provisions being contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (2) in cases other than under clauses (f) and (g), raid in sub-ssc. (4)in cases under clause (f), there being no protection in a case under clause (g. 8. IN the premises, the appellants' suit was rightly dismissed by the learned trial judge and his decree of dismissal must be affirmed. We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal but this dismissal will, in the circumstances of this case, be subject to this that the present decree for ejectment will not be executable against the appellants until the expiry of June next, provided, of course, that they go on depositing, in the trial court, to the credit of the decree-holder respovident no. 1. a sum of Rs. 70/- (Rupees seventy) per month, month by month regularly, according to the english calendar, within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the same calendar, on account of content mesne profits. In default of any two of such deposits, this decree for ejectment will become executable at once and the above provision for time or grace period will automatically lapse. There will, however, be no order for costs, either in this Court or in the court below.