Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.72 seconds)
Anil Kumar vs Sita Devi And Anr. on 24 August, 2006 cites

Jagdisih Prasad vs Smt. Angoori Devi on 15 March, 1984

Coming to the second question the expression "sub-letting" has not been defined in the Act. The conclusion on the question of sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law devised from the findings on the materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for consideration. As to what is the true meaning of expression "sub-letting", this Court considered the same in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi , in an eviction proceeding under UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. The Court held that merely from the presence of the person other than the tenant in the shop, subletting cannot be presumed and as long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and the business run in the premises is of the tenant, sub-letting flowing from the presence of the person other than the tenant in the shop cannot be assumed. It was further held that in an application for eviction of a tenant from a shop which is based on the allegations that the premises has been sublet, the allegation has to be proved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 91 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Hazari Lal And Ors. vs Giasi Ram And Ors. on 30 March, 1971

21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Hazari Lal and Ram Babu v. Shri Gian Ram and Ors. 1972 Rent C.R. 74, to contend that when the legal possession was retained by the tenant, there is no parting with possession and mere user by other person is not parting with possession and, therefore, the presence of respondent No. 2 in the shop for doing tailoring and interlocking work by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a case of sub-letting.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr vs S. Chokesiri & Co on 9 August, 1988

In the case of Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. Chokosiri and Co. (supra) this Court considered the question of subletting and held that the burden of making a case of subletting is on landlady. It was also held that the transaction of subletting in the guise of licenses are in their very nature clandestine arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant and it would be difficult to get direct evidence on the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 126 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961

We are unable to accept the argument that the High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of the appellate authority on this point. The revisional power conferred on the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act is wider than that conferred by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 15(5) of the Act the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly justify the examination of the finding by the authorities about the requirement of the landlord under Section 13(3)(a)(i). Reference was made on behalf of the appellant to the decision of this Court in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury 1962 (1) Supp. S.C.R. 933, wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its revisional powers was not entitled to reassess the value of the evidence and to substitute its own conclusions of fact in place of those reached by the Courts below. But the revisional power of the High Court in that case was exercised under Section 35(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. 38 of 1952) which is different in language from Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 with which we are concerned in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 216 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

M/S Bharat Sales Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 February, 1998

35. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent was that once the petitioner had failed to take a plea that respondent No. 2 was occupying the property as a licensee and had taken a wrong plea, then presumption had to be drawn against him. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 20 A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1240 to contend that sub-letting is a secret arrangement between the tenant and sub-tenant and it is difficult for the landlord to prove the payment of consideration by the sub-tenant. However, I find that this judgment is of no help to the respondent as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that exclusive possession of sub-tenant either wholly or partly in the premises is to be proved and presumption can be drawn qua the consideration. In the present case, the landlady has failed to prove the exclusive possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 235 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Chaudhary Ram vs Liba Sood And Ors. on 22 April, 1998

36. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent thereafter by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Chaudhary Ram v. Liba Sood and Ors. contended that as the landlord is a stranger to any agreement between the tenant and sub-tenant, therefore, when possession of 3rd party is established during the subsistence of tenancy, then inference of sub-letting can easily be drawn. For this purpose, he made reference to para 13 of the judgment which reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document
1   2 Next