Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
The Companies Act, 1956
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
In support
of the said contentions, reliance was made to the decision
of this Court in Dipak Banerjee versus Lilabati Chakraborty
(1987 (1) SCC 161. The learned counsel has submitted that
the respondent No.1 has retained possession of the premises
wherein he carries on the business of soap and he has not
carted with possession on acceptance of any consideration
from the said samiti. Hence, no case of sub-tenancy can be
lawfully held against the respondent. He has submitted that
in the aforesaid facts, the appeal should be dismissed with
cost.
Roop Chand vs Gopi Chand Thalia on 29 March, 1989
In this connection, the learned counsel for the
appellant has referred to the decision of this Court in Roop
Chand versus Gopi Chand Thela (1989 (2) SCC 383). In the
said case, a club registered under the Companies Act had
been in possession of the substantial portion of the shop
room and had been carrying on its activities. The tenant was
also in possession of a part of the said premises. The
Courts below held that the tenant was not in exclusive
possession of the said premises but had parted with
possession in respect of a substantial portion of the same
in favour of the club. Hence, even if sub-lease on payment
of rent could not be established, such parting of exclusive
possession would amount sub-lease within the meaning of
section 13(1)(e) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act. This Court has upheld such finding of the
courts below by indicating that clause (e) of Section 13(1)
of the said Act provides that a tenant would render himself
liable for eviction if he has assigned, sub-let or otherwise
parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the
premises without the permission of the landlord.
Section 13 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Hiralal Kapur vs Prabhu Choudhury on 19 February, 1988
In this connection, reference may be made to a
decision of this Court in Hiralal Kapur versus Prabhu
Choudhury (1988 (2) SCC 172). In the said case rent was paid
by two cheques, one drawn by the tenant himself for a part
of the rent, the other was drawn by the sub-tenant for the
remaining part of the rent. It has been held by this Court
that the landlord was entitled to rent (Rs.600/-p.m.) and so
long he got this amount, it was immaterial for him whether
the amount was paid in lumpsum or by one cheque or more than
one cheque and who the makers of the cheque were. In that
case, a number of cheques given to the landlord were
returned dishonored and the landlord wrote to the tenant in
which he specifically referred that five cheques were given
by the sub-lessee. Even then, it has been held by this Court
that such fact will not improve tenant's position at all for
it only evidences the fact that the landlord was receiving
the cheque issued in the name of the sub-lessee in discharge
of the tenant's obligation to pay rent for the tenanted
premises.
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd vs H.C. Sharma & Ors on 12 November, 1987
Hence, the finding by the Rent Controller that
the tenant had sub-let the said premises is wholly justified
and the decision of this Court in Shalimar's case (supra) is
applicable in all fours. The learned counsel has submitted
that the impugned order should be set aside by affirming the
order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
A.S. Sulochana vs C. Dharmalingam on 28 November, 1986
In the aforesaid circumstance, the landlord
with full knowledge has allowed the said samiti to remain in
possession of the suit premises and having acknowledged the
possession in the said samiti, has allowed the said samiti
to pay rent of the said premises in its name through
respondent No.1, A decision of this Court in A.S. Sulochana
versus C. Dharmalingam (1987 (1) RCC 213) has been referred
to by the learned counsel. This Court has indicated in the
said case that if a sub-tenant has remained in possession
openly for 18 years and if the landlord has not taken any
objection for such long possession as sub-tenant, it would
give rise to inference that the said tenancy was not
unlawful and the tenant should not be evicted on the ground
of sub-letting. The learned counsel has been occupying the
tenanted premises and has been carrying on its diverse
activities. The landlord with knowledge of such activities
of the samiti has not raised any objection for a number of
years and only in 1986 the eviction suit was instituted by
him. In the aforesaid facts, such long possession openly by
the said samiti will raise a reasonable inference that the
sub-tenancy is not unlawful.