Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Narayan Shamnani vs Mrs. Chani on 28 January, 2016 cites

Kala And Another vs Madho Parshad Vaidya on 27 August, 1998

13 Thus from the above said judgments, it is evident that in order to prove the tenancy or sub tenancy two ingredients have to be established. Firstly, the sub tenant must have exclusive right to possess or interest in the premises in question and secondly, that right must be in lieu of some consideration or rent. Mere user is not sufficient to infer sub tenancy or parting with possession. It is for the landlord to prove that the tenant has parted with legal possession of the premises. So long as the lessor retains the legal possession he cannot commit a breach of law by allowing other people to use the premises. There must be a vesting of possession by the tenant in another person. So long as the tenant retains the legal possession, that if he retains the right to claim possession from Narayan Shamnani Vs Mrs. Chani & Ors. Page 13 of 21 E No. 27/12 14 28.01.2016 the occupant, it would not be possible to say that the tenant had parted with possession, though the occupant may have been given the exclusive user, if the tenant has a right to disturb possession at any point of time, he cannot be said to have parted with possession. Thus to establish subletting the onus is on the landlord to prove through evidence that sub­tenant was in exclusive possession of the property in question ; that between the sub tenant and the tenant there was relationship of lessee and lessor and that possession of the premises in question was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of the sub­tenant ( reliance placed on Kala Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya ( 1998) 6 SCC 573: (1998 AIR SCW 2947): AIR 1998 SC 2779), Benjamin Premanand Rawade (dead) by LRs Vs. Anil Joseph Rawade (1998) 9 SCC 688 and Resham Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh AIR 1999 SCC 3087).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 77 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Benjamin Premanand Rawade (Dead) By ... vs Anil Joseph Rawade on 3 December, 1997

13 Thus from the above said judgments, it is evident that in order to prove the tenancy or sub tenancy two ingredients have to be established. Firstly, the sub tenant must have exclusive right to possess or interest in the premises in question and secondly, that right must be in lieu of some consideration or rent. Mere user is not sufficient to infer sub tenancy or parting with possession. It is for the landlord to prove that the tenant has parted with legal possession of the premises. So long as the lessor retains the legal possession he cannot commit a breach of law by allowing other people to use the premises. There must be a vesting of possession by the tenant in another person. So long as the tenant retains the legal possession, that if he retains the right to claim possession from Narayan Shamnani Vs Mrs. Chani & Ors. Page 13 of 21 E No. 27/12 14 28.01.2016 the occupant, it would not be possible to say that the tenant had parted with possession, though the occupant may have been given the exclusive user, if the tenant has a right to disturb possession at any point of time, he cannot be said to have parted with possession. Thus to establish subletting the onus is on the landlord to prove through evidence that sub­tenant was in exclusive possession of the property in question ; that between the sub tenant and the tenant there was relationship of lessee and lessor and that possession of the premises in question was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of the sub­tenant ( reliance placed on Kala Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya ( 1998) 6 SCC 573: (1998 AIR SCW 2947): AIR 1998 SC 2779), Benjamin Premanand Rawade (dead) by LRs Vs. Anil Joseph Rawade (1998) 9 SCC 688 and Resham Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh AIR 1999 SCC 3087).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - V N Khare - Full Document

Resham Singh vs Raghbir Singh & Anr on 23 August, 1999

13 Thus from the above said judgments, it is evident that in order to prove the tenancy or sub tenancy two ingredients have to be established. Firstly, the sub tenant must have exclusive right to possess or interest in the premises in question and secondly, that right must be in lieu of some consideration or rent. Mere user is not sufficient to infer sub tenancy or parting with possession. It is for the landlord to prove that the tenant has parted with legal possession of the premises. So long as the lessor retains the legal possession he cannot commit a breach of law by allowing other people to use the premises. There must be a vesting of possession by the tenant in another person. So long as the tenant retains the legal possession, that if he retains the right to claim possession from Narayan Shamnani Vs Mrs. Chani & Ors. Page 13 of 21 E No. 27/12 14 28.01.2016 the occupant, it would not be possible to say that the tenant had parted with possession, though the occupant may have been given the exclusive user, if the tenant has a right to disturb possession at any point of time, he cannot be said to have parted with possession. Thus to establish subletting the onus is on the landlord to prove through evidence that sub­tenant was in exclusive possession of the property in question ; that between the sub tenant and the tenant there was relationship of lessee and lessor and that possession of the premises in question was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of the sub­tenant ( reliance placed on Kala Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya ( 1998) 6 SCC 573: (1998 AIR SCW 2947): AIR 1998 SC 2779), Benjamin Premanand Rawade (dead) by LRs Vs. Anil Joseph Rawade (1998) 9 SCC 688 and Resham Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh AIR 1999 SCC 3087).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1   2 Next