Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.18 seconds)Shalimar Tar Products Ltd vs H.C. Sharma & Ors on 12 November, 1987
21. What is sub-letting is also defined by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1988) 1 SCC 70 (M/s.Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. vs. H.C.Sharma and others). In paragraph 17 of that judgment (at page 78), their Lordships said thus:
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
In Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty Sabyascahi Mukharji,J.,observed :(SCC pp.165-66,para 6)
But in order to prove tenancy or subtenancy two ingredients had to be established, firstly the tenant must have exclusive right of possession or interest in the premises or part of the premises in question and secondly that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent.
S.K. Raffudin And Ors. vs N. Yeswantha Rao And Ors. on 28 February, 1997
(iv) 1997(I) MLJ 581 (S.K.Raffuddin and others vs. N.Yeswantha Rao and others)
"18. It is settled law that to prove sub-lease, initially the landlord will have to prove that the tenant is parted with legal possession and a stranger is in exclusive possession of the building. So long as the exclusive possession is not even spoken to by PW1, there cannot be any question of sub-lease. Both the authorities below have not entered a finding that the second respondent, Jaleel, is in exclusive possession of any portion of the building. Both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that Jaleel might be in possession on the ground that he is having independent business. According to the Authorities below, from his presence in the premises, such an inference can be had.
Dev Kumar (Died) Through Lrs vs Smt. Swaran Lata & Ors on 10 November, 1995
In Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata (1996) 1 SCC 25, the only evidence that was let in was, a Commissioner's Report....................................Apart from the Commissioner's report, a cash bill under the so-called name of the sub-tenant was also produced. Considering these two evidence, their Lordships of the Supreme Court said thus:
Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr vs S. Chokesiri & Co on 9 August, 1988
23. Similar is the case reported in Rajbir Kaur vs. S.Chokesiri and Co., (1989)1 SCC 19, wherein also, their Lordships reiterated that
"if exclusive possession is established, and the version of the tenant as to the particulars and the incidents of the transaction is found unacceptable in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, as in the present case, it may not be impermissible for the court to draw an inference that the transaction was entered into with monetary consideration in mind. It is open to the respondent to rebut this. Such transactions of sub-letting in the guise of licences are in their vary nature, clandestine arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant and there cannot be direct evidence. It is not, unoften, a matter for legitimate inference."
M/S Bharat Sales Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 February, 1998
(v) 1998-1-L.W.690 M/S.BHARAT SALES LTD., VS. LIFEH INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, certain excerpts from it would run thus: