Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)United Bank Of India vs Cooks And Kelvey Properties (P)Ltd on 12 May, 1994
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong
reliance upon the decision of this Court in United Bank of
India Vs. Cook and Kelvey Properties (p) Limited (1994) 5
SCC 9, in which it was indicated that "the meaning of
transfer of a right to enjoy the property for consideration
envisaged under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act,
postulates that a tenant who transfers of assigns his right
in the tenancy or any part thereof in whole or in part held
by him without the previous consent in writing creates a
sub-tenancy." This case also does not help the petitioner as
it was found as a fact that although the bank (appellant)
had inducted the trade union into the premises, the bank had
not received any monetary consideration and the union was
only permitted to use the property for its trade union
activities. It was also found that the bank had retained its
power to call upon the union to vacate the premises at any
time. The bank had been maintaining the premises at its own
expenses and was also paying the electricity charges
consumed by the trade union. It was also found that the bank
retained its control over the trade union whose membership
was confined only to the employee of the bank. The
possession of the union was held to be "constructive
possession" for and on behalf of the bank. Reliance was
placed on the observation that " the existence of
consideration, an ingredient of subletting, had not been
present to hold that there was subletting." In the
background of the facts of the case, this observation does
not purport to lay down that in every case payment of
consideration must be established by the landlord to prove
subletting by the tenant.
Jagan Nath (Deceased) Through L.Rs vs Chander Bhan And Others on 11 May, 1988
7. The case of Jagan Nath Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors. (1988) 3
SCC 57 is also distinguishable on facts as in that case it
was found that the father was carrying on business with his
sons and the family was joint Hindu family and, therefore,
it was difficult to presume that the father had parted with
possession to attract the mischief of Section 14(1)(b) of
the Act.
Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr vs S. Chokesiri & Co on 9 August, 1988
In Rajbir Kaur vs. S. Chokesiri & Co (1989) 1 SCC 19,
it was held that it was not necessary for the landlord in
every case to prove payment of consideration. It was laid
down that if exclusive possession was established, it would
not be impermissible for the Court to draw an inference that
the transaction was entered into with the monetary
consideration in mind. The Court further observed that
transactions of subletting in the guise of licences are in
their very nature clandestine arrangements between the
tenant and the sub-tenant and there cannot be furnished
direct evidence in every case. It will be noticed that in
this case it was established as a fact that the tenant had
parted with a part of the demised premises in favour of an
ice-cream vendor who was in exclusive possession of that
part of the premises and, therefore, the Court drew an
inference that the transaction must have been entered into
for monetary consideration.
Gopal Saran vs Satyanarayana on 20 February, 1989
In another case, namely, Gopal Saran Vs. Satyanarayana
(1989) 3 SCC 56, which was cited by the counsel for the
petitioner, it was held that the question whether there is a
tenancy of licence or parting with possession in a
particular case, would depend upon the quality of occupation
given to the licencee or the transferee. It was held on
facts that where the tenant had allowed the advertisement
board of another company to be fixed on the terrace of the
shop, he cannot be said to have sublet the premises within
the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises
(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973
Reliance for this purpose was placed on an earlier
decision of this Court in Smt. Krishnavati Vs. Hans Raj
(1974) 1 SCC 289, in which two persons lived in a house as
husband and wife and one of them who was the tenant of the
premises allowed the other to carry on business in a part of
it. The contention that it amounted to subletting was
rejected and it was observed that it would be a rash
inference to draw that the husband had sublet the house to
the wife.
M/S. Delhi Stationers And Printers vs Rajendra Kumar on 27 February, 1990
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention
to a decision of this Court in Delhi Stationers & Printers
Vs. Rajendra Kumar (1990) 2 SCC 331, where the tenant was
found to have allowed his relative (brother-in-law) to live
with him and to use his kitchen and latrine. This was not
treated as subletting or parting with possession.
Consequently, it is of no aid to petitioner.
1