Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing United Bank Of India vs Cooks And Kelvey Properties (P)Ltd on 12 May, 1994

Smt. Gursharan Kaur vs Sh. Harbans Singh on 8 January, 2016

27. Fifthly, the principles of law laid down in cases Bhagwan P. Sajnani v. Ranbir Singh (supra), Hira Lal and others v. Banarsi Dass (supra), United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Ltd (supra) and V.N. Puri and others v. Bishan Lal Agarwal (supra) relied on by Ld. Counsel for the respondent provide benefit to the respondent/tenant as in the almost similar circumstances, it was held that there was no sub-letting, assigning or parting with the possession.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bharat Sales Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 February, 1998

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in United Bank of India Vs. Cook and Kelvey Properties (p) Limited (1994) 5 SCC 9, in which it was indicated that "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 of assigns his right in the tenancy or any part thereof in whole or in part held by him without the previous consent in writing creates a sub-tenancy." This case also does not help the petitioner as it was found as a fact that although the bank (appellant) had inducted the trade union into the premises, the bank had not received any monetary consideration and the union was only permitted to use the property for its trade union activities. It was also found that the bank had retained its power to call upon the union to vacate the premises at any time. The bank had been maintaining the premises at its own expenses and was also paying the electricity charges consumed by the trade union. It was also found that the bank retained its control over the trade union whose membership was confined only to the employee of the bank. The possession of the union was held to be "constructive possession" for and on behalf of the bank. Reliance was placed on the observation that " the existence of consideration, an ingredient of subletting, had not been present to hold that there was subletting." In the background of the facts of the case, this observation does not purport to lay down that in every case payment of consideration must be established by the landlord to prove subletting by the tenant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 235 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Kasturi Lal (Deceased) Through L.Rs. vs Sadhu Ram And Anr. on 25 September, 2004

16. It is, thus, apparent that the plea of license has been raised for the first time before this Court. In the absence of any such plea raised either in the pleadings or evidence, it would be impermissible to be raised for the first time before this Court. It is further appropriate to mention that the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India's case (supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the tenant-respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the bank who was a tenant was proved to be in possession as it maintained the premises at its own expenses, paying the electricity charges consumed by the trade Union for using the same to whom it was given for use and the demised premises was in full control of the tenant-bank. The tenant-bank also retained its control over the trade Union and its membership was confined to the membership of tenant-bank alone. On the basis of facts and circumstances, the Court has drawn an inference that the tenant-bank has retained its legal control of possession and allowed the trade Union to occupy the premises for its Union activities. Although exclusive possession of the demised premises was shown to be that of the trade Union, yet a plausible explanation explaining the nature of possession was given. It was, therefore, in the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances that the Supreme Court required the proof of existence of consideration from the landlord which was not present. It is not in every case that the existence of proof of consideration is required.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Murari Rao And Anr. vs Sri Raghunath Rao Ghatge on 15 December, 2004

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited , in which it was indicated that "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 without the previous consent in writing creates a sub-tenancy".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Murali Rao And Anr. vs Raghunatha Rao Ghatge on 15 December, 2004

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited , in which it was indicated that "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 without the previous consent in writing creates a sub-tenancy". This case also does not help the petitioner as it was found as a fact that although the bank (appellant) had inducted the trade union into the premises, the bank had not received any monetary consideration and the union was only permitted to use the property for its trade union activities. It was also found that the bank had retained its power to call upon the union to vacate the premises at any time. The bank had - been maintaining the premises at its own expenses and was also paying the electricity charges consumed by the trade union. It was also found that the bank retained its control over the trade union whose membership was confirmed only to the employees of the bank. The possession of the union was held to be "constructive possession" for and on behalf of the bank. Reliance was placed on the observation that "the existence of consideration, an ingredient of sub-letting, had not been present to hold that there was subletting". In the background of the facts of the case, this observation does not purport to lay down that in every case payment of consideration must be established by the landlord to prove sub-letting by the tenant."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Phool Wati vs Harsh Gogia on 2 May, 1996

(8) The matter was argued at length. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that (a) no sub-letting was proved on record as the tenants as well as the alleged sub-tenants were doing business in the same premises and where legal possession is retained by the tenant, there was no parting with possession and mere user is of no consequence. Reference is made to the judgments as reported in HazariLal and Ram Babu v. Shri Gian Ram and others 1972 (4) R.C.R. 75; A.S.Sulochana v. C.Dharemalingam 1987(1) R.C.R. 213;DipakBanerjee v. Smt.Lilabati Chakraborty and United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Ltd. . All these judgments lay down the well settled proposition that where the alleged sub-tenant was not in exclusive possession of portion of the premises and there was no evidence that the sub-tenant was in exclusive possession and that he paid any rent, there was no creation of sub tenancy. These facts are not proved in the present case where it is reiterated and concurrently held that sub-letting is proved in favour of respondent No.9 and particularly when a plea has been raised by the appellants that this is with the consent of the former landlord of the premises. In this background, it cannot be said that the appellants, in any manner, retained possession of the premises. On the contrary, it is established from record that they had inducted respondent No.9 as a sub-tenant and had nothing to do with the premises. This obviously was done without the written consent of the respondents. The provisions of section 14(l)(b) of the Act lays down that the tenant shall not sub-let, assign or otherwise part with possession of whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shama Prashant Raje vs Ganpatrao & Ors on 27 September, 2000

Vs. Chander Bhan and Others (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 57, Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana - (1989) Supreme Court Cases 56, Delhi Stationers and Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 331 and United Bank of India vs. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited - (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 9. So far as the question of habitual default is concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the rent for the months of September to November 1984 had been paid in December 1984 and Clause 9 of the agreement of tenancy between the appellant and respondent entitles the tenant to pay the rent within one month from the date of the notice received from the landlord, and authorises the landlord to approach the Court of Law if the rent over 3 months is not paid within one month of the notice in question, and this being the position, the Lower Appellate Authority was fully justified in holding that the tenant cannot be said to be a habitual defaulter and the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the said finding. So far as the default in payment of rent for the months of December 84 to March 85 is concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the Lower Appellate Authority was justified in taking into consideration the refusal of the landlord to the two money orders sent, and the High Court, therefore, was in error in interfering with the conclusion on fact of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order by interfering with the same in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 86 - S V Patil - Full Document

Vaishakhi Ram And Ors vs Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani on 25 February, 2008

13. Mr. Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had strongly relied on a decision of this Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited [(1994) 5 SCC 9] and submitted that since the appellant No.1 was in exclusive possession and legal control of the suit shop, the case of subletting could not be proved. In our view, that decision of this Court has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, although the tenant appellant bank had inducted the trade union in the tenanted premises for carrying on the trade union activities, the bank had not received any monetary consideration from the trade union which was permitted to use and enjoy the same for its trade union activities. The bank had retained its power to call upon the trade union to vacate the premises at any time and the Union had also given an undertaking to vacate the same when required. In that decision, the bank was maintaining the premises at its own expense and also paying the electricity charges consumed by the trade union for using the demised premises. Basing on the aforesaid facts, it was held in that case that the bank had retained its control over the trade union whose membership was only confined to the employees of the bank and, therefore, the court held that the inference that could only be drawn was that the appellant had retained the legal control and possession of the suit premises in that case. As noted herein earlier, this is not the situation in the present case. The findings of the three courts were that the appellant no.1 had no legal control over the suit shop and also that the appellant nos.2 to 4 were in exclusive possession of the suit shop or at least, in a portion of the same and were carrying on a different independent business in the suit shop. Such being the position and in view of the fact that the appellant nos.2 to 4 were conducting their independent business in the suit shop and had exclusive possession of the same and that the appellant No. 1 had no legal control or possession over the suit shop, the aforesaid decision of this Court, as relied on by Mr. Aggarwal, could not be taken to be of any help to the appellants. Accordingly, these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants have no legs to stand upon and thus rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 62 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

M/S S.F.Engineer vs Metal Box India Ltd.& Anr on 28 March, 2014

23. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to reaffirm the proposition that the Court under certain circumstances can draw its own inference on the basis of materials brought at the trial to arrive at the conclusion that there has been parting with the legal possession and acceptance of monetary consideration either in cash or in kind or having some kind of arrangement. The aforesaid authorities make it further spectacularly clear that the transaction of subletting can be proved by legitimate inference though the burden is on the person seeking eviction. The materials brought out in evidence can be gathered together for arriving at the conclusion that a plea of subletting is established. The constructive possession of the tenant by retention of control like in Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited (supra) would not make it parting with possession as it has to be parting with legal possession. Sometimes emphasis has been laid on the fact that the sub-tenancy is created in a clandestine manner and there may not be direct proof on the part of a landlord to prove it but definitely it can bring materials on record from which such inference can be drawn.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next