Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.87 seconds)
Manbir Singh vs Suresh Bansal And Others on 28 May, 2015 cites

Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors vs Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors on 30 October, 2009

In this regard reference to Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others (2010) 1 SCC 217 would be pertinent. In the said case a two-Judge Bench, after referring to number of authorities and the rent legislation, summarized the legal position relating to issue of sub-letting or creation of sub-tenancy. The two aspects which are of relevance to the present case are: (SCC p.231, para 25) "(i) In order to prove mischief of sub-letting as a ground for eviction under rent control laws, two ingredients have to be established: (i) parting with possession of tenancy or part of it by the tenant in favour of a third party with exclusive right of possession, and (two) that such parting with possession has been done without the consent of the landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 202 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Mohammad Kasam Haji Gulambhai vs Bakerali Fatehal1 (D) By Lrs on 8 September, 1998

In Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali Fatehali (1998) 7 SCC 608 this Court observed: (SCC p.618, para 13) "There is absolute prohibition on the tenant from sub- letting, assigning or transferring in any other manner his interest in the tenanted premises. There appears to be no way around this subject of course if there is any contract to the contrary between the landlord and the tenant. In a partnership where the tenant is a partner, he retains legal r possession of the premises as a partnership is a compendium of the names of all the partners. In a partnership, the tenant does not divest himself of his right in the premises. On the question of sub-letting etc. the law is now very explicit. There is prohibition in absolute terms on the tenant from sub- letting, assignment or disposition of his interest in the tenanted premises."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 23 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

M/S Mahendra Saree Emporium vs G.V. Srinivasa Murthy on 27 August, 2004

10. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481 wherein this Court held: (SCC p.492, para 16) "The mere fact that another person is allowed to use the premises while the lesses retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub lease. Thus, the thrust is, as laid down by this Court, on finding out who is in legal possession of the premises. So long as the legal possession remains with the tenant the mere factum of the tenant having entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business in the tenancy premises would not amount to sub-letting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 71 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014

The Court also extensively referred to the principle stated in Bharat Sales Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed that it would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub-let had paid ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:16:31 :::HCHP 16 monetary consideration to the tenant. Though payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease, yet it .
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 510 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987

In Smt. Rajbir Kaur and another v. S. Chokesiri and Co.(1989) 1 SCC 19, after referring to the decision in Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty (1987) 4 SCC 161 and other decisions the Court opined that (Rajbir Kaur case, SCC p.43, para 59) "59......If exclusive possession is established, and the version of the respondent as to the particulars and the incidents of the transaction is found acceptable in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be impermissible for the court to draw an inference that the transaction was entered into with monetary consideration in mind."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 109 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Bhairab Chandra Nandan vs Ranadhir Chandra Dutta on 16 December, 1987

In this context, reference to a two-Judge Bench decision in Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta (1988) 1 SCC 383 would be apposite. In the said case the tenant had permanently shifted his residence elsewhere leaving the rooms completely to his brother for his occupation without obtaining the landlord's permission. In that context, the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 387-88, para 5) "5. Now coming to the question of sub-letting, once again r we find that the courts below had adequate material to conclude that the respondent had sub-let the premises, albeit to his own brother and quit the place and the sub- letting was without the consent of the appellant. Admittedly, the respondent was living elsewhere and it is his brother Manadhir who was in occupation of the rooms taken on lease by the respondent. The High Court has taken the view that because Manadhir is the brother of the respondent, he will only be a licensee and not a sub-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 73 - Full Document
1   2 Next