As per case facts, a landlord acquired premises where the original tenant had surrendered tenancy, leading to a compromise eviction decree. However, a restaurant firm operating in the premises resisted ... execution for decades, claiming protection as a sub-tenant. This protracted litigation involved multiple counter-suits and appeals concerning the firm's status and its right to remain in occupation. The landlord sought to execute the initial compromise decree. The question arose whether the respondent firm could claim the status of a protected sub-tenant and resist eviction under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, especially as its partnership formation and the departure of the sole proprietor occurred after the original tenancy had ended. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the firm, being a mere trade name and not a legal entity, could not claim direct tenancy or protection under the Act. The Court found that the original sub-tenant, a sole proprietor, had vacated the premises and left the country, and the current firm lacked a valid claim to resist eviction. Consequently, the landlord's right to execute the decree was upheld, and the single judge's decision was restored.