JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to rectify the defects in terms of the report of the Stamp Reporter. 2. This second miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th June, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 544 of 2013 by affirming the judgment and order being No. 145 dated 3rd December, 2013 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore in Miscellaneous Case No. 849 of 2008 at the instance of the objector/appellant. 3. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. 4. Usha Holding & Enclave Private Limited & Others being plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against Krishna Gopal Mondal on various grounds viz. - (i) The tenant after giving six months notice dated 30th June, 2006 intimating his landlords to vacate and/or give up possession of the tenanted premises i.e. suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs, failed and neglected to deliver up possession of the suit property in terms of the said notice. (ii) Default in payment of rent. (iii) The defendant/tenant is guilty of sub-letting and/or inducting unauthorised persons in the tenanted premises without the consent of the plaintiffs. (iv) The defendant/tenant committed various acts of waste. (v) Plaintiffs reasonably require the tenanted premises for building and rebuilding. 5. The defendant/tenant appeared in the said suit and filed an application on 11th July, 2007 mentioning therein that the defendant being the tenant under the plaintiffs is interested in giving up his possession in the tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs. He did not file any written statement to contest the said suit. As such, the suit proceeded with for the ex-parte hearing. Hearing of the said suit was concluded on 27th July, 2007 and 3rd August, 2007 was fixed for passing judgment in the said suit. 6. The defendant viz. Krishna Gopal Mondal died on 21st August, 2007 after conclusion of the hearing of the suit. The ex-parte decree was passed on 30th May, 2008. Hearing of the said suit was concluded on 27th July, 2007 and 3rd August, 2007 was fixed for passing judgment in the said suit. 6. The defendant viz. Krishna Gopal Mondal died on 21st August, 2007 after conclusion of the hearing of the suit. The ex-parte decree was passed on 30th May, 2008. The decree for eviction was passed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that the tenant having given notice to quit and vacate his tenancy, failed to vacate the suit premises and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for eviction. The learned Trial Judge also held that service of notice by the tenant upon his landlords intimating his intention to vacate the suit premises has also been proved. 7. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the executability of the said decree on the ground of nullity. According to the appellant, the said decree is vitiated by fraud. The appellant claimed itself as sub-tenant under the defendant/tenant. The appellant claimed that its sub-tenancy was created in 1946 i.e. prior to the commencement of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 8. The learned Executing Court rejected the objector’s said objection against executability of the said decree. Hence, it filed a first miscellaneous appeal before the learned Appeal Court. The said appeal having been dismissed by the learned Appeal Court, the instant second miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 9. Though the objector/appellant contended that the decree having been passed against a dead person is a nullity and such challenge was rejected by the learned Executing Court which was also affirmed in appeal, but in course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in his usual fairness submits that he will not press the said ground of challenge as it is apparent from the record that the original tenant died after conclusion of hearing of the eviction proceeding, but before passing of the decree. As such, the landlord is protected under the provision of Order 22, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. Mr. As such, the landlord is protected under the provision of Order 22, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. Mr. Roy Chowdhury strenuously argues before us that the ex-parte decree which was passed in the said suit is a nullity as, such a decree for eviction was passed by the court without recording its satisfaction as to existence of any of the grounds as mentioned in Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He further contends that his client being a sub-tenant has every right to challenge the executability of the said decree as it is his client who is only affected by the said ex-parte decree. 11. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further submits that even though his client’s application for addition of party in the suit was rejected by the learned Trial Judge and the same was affirmed by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, but still then in view of the provision contained in Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code, his client is entitled to challenge the legality of the said order of rejection of his client’s application for addition of party in the suit passed by the learned Trial Judge. In this regard, he has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs. v. Sohan Lal (Dead) By LRs. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 434 . He thus invites us to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Let us now consider the acceptability of such contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior counsel in the facts of the present case. 13. Here is the case where we find that an eviction suit was filed by the landlords against their tenant on several grounds including a ground that the tenant after giving notice to quit the suit premises to the landlords, has failed to vacate the suit premises. For maintaining a suit on this ground, no further notice of suit was required to be served. The learned Trial Judge found that the notice to quit was duly served by the tenant upon his landlords. The tenant appeared in the said suit, but did not file any written statement to contest the same. For maintaining a suit on this ground, no further notice of suit was required to be served. The learned Trial Judge found that the notice to quit was duly served by the tenant upon his landlords. The tenant appeared in the said suit, but did not file any written statement to contest the same. On the contrary, the tenant filed an application in the said suit mentioning his intention to vacate the suit premises in favour of his landlords viz. the plaintiffs. Such being the position, we hold that the decree which was passed by the learned Trial Judge after recording satisfaction about the said ground cannot be held to be a nullity. 14. Let us now consider the locus of the objector/appellant to maintain the said proceeding under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code. 15. Admittedly the objector/appellant does not claim itself to be a notified subtenant. A non-notified sub-tenant has not been given any right to contest the suit under the Scheme of the Tenancy Act. It is well settled that the decree which is passed against a tenant is binding upon the sub-tenant. As such, a non-notified sub-tenant, in our view, has no locus to challenge the legality and/or executability of the decree passed in the said eviction suit. We, thus, fully endorse the views of the learned courts below and hold that the courts below rightly rejected the objector’s application and/or first miscellaneous appeal as mentioned above. 16. Accordingly, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted. We thus decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. The appeal thus stands dismissed. Re: CAN No. 9808 of 2015 (Stay) 18. Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN No. 9808 of 2015 is thus deemed to be disposed of. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.