Statutory sub-tenancy compliance governs impleadment rights, and a non-compliant sub-tenant remains bound by the eviction decree.

A sub-tenant claiming protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 must establish the landlord's prior written consent and statutory notice of the sub-tenancy. Where those mandatory requirements are not proved, the sub-tenant acquires no enforceable right to be impleaded in the landlord's eviction suit, and the eviction decree against the tenant binds the sub-tenant as well. A bilateral arrangement between tenant and alleged sub-tenant cannot defeat the landlord's statutory right to evict. In that setting, allegations of fraud and collusion do not survive as an independent basis to resist the decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether a sub-tenant who has not complied with the statutory requirements of prior written consent and notice under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 can insist on being impleaded in the landlord's eviction suit and challenge the eviction decree on the ground of fraud and collusion.

Analysis: The statutory scheme bars creation of sub-tenancy without the landlord's previous written consent and requires notice of the sub-tenancy to be given in the prescribed manner within the stipulated time. The Act also provides that only sub-tenants who have complied with the notice requirement are entitled to be made parties to eviction proceedings. On the facts found by the executing court, neither prior written consent nor statutory notice was established. A bilateral arrangement between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant could not bind the landlord or defeat the landlord's statutory right to evict. Since the sub-tenant had not perfected any legal right under the Act, the landlord was under no obligation to implead it, and the decree passed against the tenant bound the sub-tenant as well. In that situation, the allegations of fraud and collusion did not survive for independent consideration.

Conclusion: The challenge based on fraud and collusion was not maintainable in the circumstances, and the executing court was justified in rejecting the sub-tenant's objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sub-tenant has failed to satisfy mandatory statutory conditions for lawful sub-tenancy and notice, it has no right to be impleaded in the eviction suit, and the eviction decree against the tenant remains binding on it; allegations of fraud and collusion then become academic.

---