DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD. versus SHYAM SUNDER GANERIWALLA AND ANR.

DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD. versus SHYAM SUNDER GANERIWALLA AND ANR.

The agreement dated 18th July, 1970 was a deed of 'leave and licence' and not a 'lease', based on the clear intention expressed in the document by parties fully aware of their rights, the literal terms of the clauses, and absence of any plea of camouflage. Exclusive possession did not alter this conclusion given the express terms. The second and third parts of the agreement (sub-lease and purchase of equipment) never came into operation, confirming leave and licence relationship only.

Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Delta International Ltd.; Respondent Defendant: Shyam Sunder Ganeriwalla; Respondent Defendant: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decree; Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment of Division Bench set aside; order of Single Judge restored
Legal Topics
Lease Versus Licence, Interpretation of Contracts, Sub Tenancy, Transfer of Property Act
Property Law Contract Law Lease Versus Licence Interpretation of Contracts Sub Tenancy Transfer of Property Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delta International Ltd.

Appellant Plaintiff

Shyam Sunder Ganeriwalla

Respondent Defendant

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decree; Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement in question constitutes a lease or a leave and licence
  2. 2 Whether exclusive possession creates a lease or licence
  3. 3 Effect of terms in the agreement on the legal relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement dated 18th July, 1970 was a deed of 'leave and licence' and not a 'lease', based on the clear intention expressed in the document by parties fully aware of their rights, the literal terms of the clauses, and absence of any plea of camouflage. Exclusive possession did not alter this conclusion given the express terms. The second and third parts of the agreement (sub-lease and purchase of equipment) never came into operation, confirming leave and licence relationship only.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment of Division Bench set aside; order of Single Judge restored

Orders

  • Suit No.491/85 decree in favour of appellant restored
  • No order as to costs