Sub-tenant's statutory right to direct tenancy survives a pending ejectment suit and is not barred by lis pendens

Section 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was held to confer a fresh statutory right on a sub-tenant to be declared a direct tenant under the superior landlord, and that right could be invoked in a pending ejectment suit despite Section 40 saving proceedings under the repealed 1950 Act. The saving clause did not exclude the new statutory entitlement, which could be recognised before any decree or order for eviction. The doctrine of lis pendens did not apply because the change in tenancy status arose from legislative command, not from any transfer pendente lite.

---

---

Issues: Whether the right conferred by Section 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 could be invoked by a sub-tenant in a pending ejectment suit notwithstanding the saving provision in Section 40 of that Act and the earlier proceeding under the repealed Act.

Analysis: Section 40 kept pending proceedings under the repealed 1950 Act alive as if that Act had not been repealed, but it did not exclude the operation of the new right created by Section 16(3). The statute conferred on a sub-tenant a fresh entitlement to be declared a direct tenant under the superior landlord, and that entitlement could be recognised so long as no decree or order for eviction had yet been passed. The doctrine of lis pendens was inapplicable because the sub-tenant was not transferring property pendente lite; the change in legal status flowed from legislative command, not from any alienation by a party.

Conclusion: The sub-tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 16(3), and the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased upon the Rent Controller's declaration.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory right conferred by a later tenancy law on a sub-tenant may operate in a pending ejectment suit despite a saving clause for the repealed law, and the resulting change in tenancy status is not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

---