Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(8) What is worse, the case of the landlords as laid must fail for another reason. The Company was formed in the year 1960. In the year 1962 fresh tenancy in respect of the composite premises was created by the landlords in favor of the tenant. Eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that there has been assignment, subletting or parting with possession in 1962-63 i.e. after the fresh tenancy apparently by virtue of the fact that the business was converted at that time into corporate form. Unfortunately for the landlords, the business had been converted into a corporate form in 1960 even before the composite tenancy was created. Nothing further is alleged to have or has in fact taken place after the creation of the composite tenancy which would possible constitute an act of parting with possession. The act of parting with possession complained of by the landlords in the petition for eviction was the conversion of the business into a corporate form. Such a conversion having preceded the creation of the tenancy the case of the landlords, as laid in the petition, must fail in the absence of any averment that there was some overtact or omission on the part of the landlord's after the creation of the composite tenancy which entitled the landlords to an eviction order.