Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Vankar Kalabhai Dhulabhai vs Panchal Subhadraben ... on 23 July, 2014 cites

Dev Kumar (Died) Through Lrs vs Smt. Swaran Lata & Ors on 10 November, 1995

5.1 The acid test to constitute an act of sub- letting is that the tenant has parted with exclusive possession in favour of a third party. The Supreme Court in Dev Kumar Vs Swaran Lata [(1996) 1 SCC 25] explained the concept of "exclusive possession" saying that there it is parting of legal possession which in Page 3 of 9 C/CRA/146/2014 JUDGMENT turn means possession with right to include and also right to exclude others.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 31 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Vinaykishore Punamchandji ... vs Bhumi Kalptru & Ors on 5 August, 2010

7.2 In the present case, the case of the landlord pleaded in the plaint and furthered in his evidence that the tenant was collecting rent of Rs.200/- per month was unrebutted. As discussed hereinabove, the factum of parting of possession by the tenant and the third party is in exclusive possession was clearly shown and proved. In the Page 7 of 9 C/CRA/146/2014 JUDGMENT circumstances, the monetary consideration has to be inferred. The principle was reiterated in Vinaykishore Punamchand Mundhada v. Shri Bhumi Kalpataru [(2010) 9 SCC 129], observed that, "It would be impossible for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the arrangement between the tenant and sub-tenant. It would not be possible to establish by direct evidence as to whether the person inducted into possession by the tenant had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Such arrangement which may have been made secretly, cannot be proved by affirmative evidence and in such circumstances, the court is required to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the enquiry. Delivery of exclusive possession by the tenant to a stranger to the landlord and without the prior permission of the landlord is one dominant factor based on which the court could infer as to whether the premises were sub-let." (para 19)
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 21 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1