Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)Associated Hotels Of India Ltd., Delhi vs S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh on 7 December, 1967
In the context of similar provision in Rajasthan Premises
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in its
decision reported as Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana,(1989) 3 SCC 56,
while referring to its various previous decisions including Associated
Hotel of India Ltd. Delhi v. S.B Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC
933; Dr. Vijay Kumar v. Raghbir Singh Anokh Singh, (1973) 2 SCC
597; and Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C Sharma, (1988) 1 SCC
70, inter alia, held that "to constitute a subletting, there must be a
parting of legal possession i.e., possession with the right to include and
also right to exclude others and whether in a particular case there was
subletting was substantially a question of fact". It was held that "parting
with possession is understood as parting with legal possession by one in
favour of the other by giving him an exclusive possession to the ouster of
the grantor". It was further observed that "the question whether there is a
RCT No. 233/16 M/s. Shivam Properties v. The Ajit Manufacturing Page 15 of 23
tenancy or licence or parting with possession in a particular case must
depend upon the quality of occupation given to the licensee or the
transferee. Mere occupation is not sufficient, in our opinion, to infer
either subtenancy or parting with possession..."
Shri Amar Singh Trilochan Singh vs Smt. Jasoti on 28 May, 2003
25. Before parting with this appeal the proposition of law laid
down in the case of Amar Singh Trilochan Singh v. Jasoti (supra),
cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no application in the
present case. The proposition of law was laid with regard to claim of the
tenant that he had entered into a partnership firm with a third party and it
is in such facts & circumstances, it was held that Rent Controller was
required to examine the issue as per the parameters laid down vide
Section 14 (4) of the DRC Act and when a "third person is established to
be functioning in the property in question" and there is nothing to show
that the tenant is doing any business from the shop in dispute, conclusion
of subletting or parting with possession were obvious. The said
proposition of law is distinguishable as it was given in the overall
contextual background of a case where evidence as to genuine
partnership between the tenant and a third person was amiss.
Duli Chand (Dead) By L.Rs vs Jagmender Dass on 8 December, 1989
On other
hand, learned Counsel for the respondent relied on decision in the case of
Duli Chand (dead) by LRs v. Jagmender Das, MANU/SC/0172/1989
wherein in relation to the issue of "parting with possession", it was held
RCT No. 233/16 M/s. Shivam Properties v. The Ajit Manufacturing Page 22 of 23
that mere user by other person or third person is not parting with
possession so long as the tenant retains legal possession himself.
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd vs H.C. Sharma & Ors on 12 November, 1987
In the context of similar provision in Rajasthan Premises
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in its
decision reported as Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana,(1989) 3 SCC 56,
while referring to its various previous decisions including Associated
Hotel of India Ltd. Delhi v. S.B Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC
933; Dr. Vijay Kumar v. Raghbir Singh Anokh Singh, (1973) 2 SCC
597; and Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C Sharma, (1988) 1 SCC
70, inter alia, held that "to constitute a subletting, there must be a
parting of legal possession i.e., possession with the right to include and
also right to exclude others and whether in a particular case there was
subletting was substantially a question of fact". It was held that "parting
with possession is understood as parting with legal possession by one in
favour of the other by giving him an exclusive possession to the ouster of
the grantor". It was further observed that "the question whether there is a
RCT No. 233/16 M/s. Shivam Properties v. The Ajit Manufacturing Page 15 of 23
tenancy or licence or parting with possession in a particular case must
depend upon the quality of occupation given to the licensee or the
transferee. Mere occupation is not sufficient, in our opinion, to infer
either subtenancy or parting with possession..."