Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited & Anr on 15 April, 1964
In Rup Chand Gupta vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited & Anr.
1964 AIR 1889, respondent no.2 was lessee of respondent no.1 and
appellant was the sublessee. Respondent no.1 filed a suit against
respondent no.2 for eviction in which the appellant was not
impleaded as a party. On omission to implead the appellant as a
party, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
"that the law does not require that the sublessee
need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out
by the High Court that in all cases possession of the
land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on
the lessee and does not implead the sublessee as a
party to the suit, the object, of the landlord is to eject
the sublessee from the land in execution of the
decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The
decree in such a suit would bind the suble ssee. This
may act harshly on the sublessee; but this is a
position well understood by him when he took the
subleases the law allows this and so the omission
cannot be said to be an improper act."
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Mangaldas Girdhardas vs Govindlal Ishwarlal on 16 March, 1944
In Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. Govindlal Ishwarlal (1945) 47
BOMLR 118, Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed as under :
"When there is landlord and a tenant and the
premises are sublet, there is neither privity of
contract nor estate between the landlord and the sub
tenant."
1