Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta6 (SCC p. 387) relied upon by Dr Shankar Ghosh, the question was, whether one brother who had taken the premises on lease but admittedly residing in another premises, parted with possession in favour of his other brother Mandahir who was in occupation of the premises, was a subtenant or not. This Court on consideration of the said facts, held that the lease and licence pleaded by the tenant was not right. It was a case of subletting without the consent of the landlord and that, therefore, the decree of eviction was upheld. The question, as stated earlier, is whether the appellant had sublet the premises? It is seen that under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease has been defined as the transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Section 13(1)(a) does not define the word 'transfer'. Section 14 of the Tenancy Act provides for penalty for subletting. The meaning of transfer of a right to enjoy the property for consideration envisaged under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, postulates that a tenant who transfers or assigns his right in the tenancy or any part thereof in whole or in part held by him is (sic creates) a subtenancy without the previous consent in writing. When the subtenancy was created, the subtenant is liable for prosecution under Section 14 read with Section 13(3) of the Tenancy Act. When it is a penalty as provided under Section 14 for transfer or assignment of the right in the tenancy in whole or in part of the premises held by the tenant in favour of the subtenant, the sublease envisaged under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act would equally apply.