Summary
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the High Court, whereby the High Court had held that the petitioner was not a sub- tenant and as such he was bound by the decree passed against the tenant for eviction. The petitioner challenged before this Court the finding of the High Court and contended that he was a sub-tenant with the knowledge and consent of the landlord and as such the decree of eviction passed against the tenant did not bind him because in the suit he had not been a party. He should have been made a party to the suit.
Dismissing the petition, the Court,HELD: The High Court was right. The attention of the Court was drawn to an agreement of 1st September, 1966, with the contention that that was an arrangement of sub-letting and in that document one of the attesting witnesses was the landlord himself, and, therefore, the subletting was done with the knowledge and consent of the landlord and, as such, was valid. [1088G]One of the attesting witnesses to the said agreement was Md. Ali, the respondent herein, who was at the relevant time the landlord, now represented by his legal representatives in this petition. On a construction of the different clauses of the aforesaid document, the Court was of the opinion that this was an agreement of the business of the tenant. It was not and could not be construed as an agreement of subtenan- cy. There was no parting of possession of the premises.There was only a right to "manage" the business, looking after the existing business with fixed monthly payments and this could not be construed as an agreement of sub-tenancy.Therefore, though the landlord had knowledge of the docu- ment, it could not be said to be consent to an agreement 1088of sub-tenancy. The attention of the Court was drawn to section 2(4) on the expression 'tenant' in the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956. That definition did not affect the position of the petitioner in this case as there was no sub-tenancy in the case. [1090C-E, G]The High Court was right in the view it took. [1088F]M/s. Girdhar Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and oth- ers, [1968] 2 S.C.C. 237, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
Md. Salim VS. Md. All Since Deceased Through Hislrs. Md. Assim & Ors.
PETITIONER: MD. SALIM Vs.RESPONDENT: MD. ALl SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HISLRS. MD. ASSIM & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT26/08/1987BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)OZA, G.L. (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 2173 1987 SCR (3)1087 1987 SCC (4) 270 JT 1987 (3) 446 1987 SCALE (2)407CITATOR INFO : D 1989 SC 93 (4,...
See the full content of this document