Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Jagdisih Prasad vs Smt. Angoori Devi on 15 March, 1984
"10. Coming to the second question the expression "subletting" has not been defined in the Act. The conclusion on the question of subletting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from the findings on the materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for consideration. As to what is the true meaning of expression "sub-letting", this Court considered the same in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi, 1984(3) S.C.R. 216 in an eviction proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. The Court held that merely from the presence of the person other than the tenant in the shop, subletting cannot be presumed and as long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and the business run in the premises is of the tenant, sub -letting flowing from the presence of the person other than the tenant in the shop cannot be assumed. It was further held that in an application for eviction of a tenant from a shop which is based on the allegation that the premises has been sublet, the allegation has to be proved.
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd vs H.C. Sharma & Ors on 12 November, 1987
The question of subletting was considered by this Court in the case of M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., 1988(1) S.C.R. 1023 and it was held that in order to construe subletting there must be parting of legal possession of the lessee and parting of legal possession means "possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others."
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
In Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty, (1987)4 S.C.C. 161, the Supreme Court held that for proving the charge of subletting, it was necessary to prove that the sub-tenant was in exclusive possession of the part of the premises and the tenant had retained no control over that part of the premises.
The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sh. Subhash Chander vs Sh. Surinder Singh on 21 July, 1994
Learned Counsel also contended that the landlord never raised any dispute about subletting for almost 20 years. This allegation had been leveled for the first time in the eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") on 2.2.1991. This, according to him, was an indication that there was no sub-tenancy. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Subhash Chancier v. Surinder Singh, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 351 and Rajinder Kumar v. Bhagwanti and Ors., (1993-3)105 P.L.R. 693.
Section 13 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
1