DIPAK BANERJEE versus SMT. LILABATI CHAKRABORTY

DIPAK BANERJEE versus SMT. LILABATI CHAKRABORTY

As there was no finding of exclusive possession or payment of money in exchange for use of part of the premises, and as services in lieu of rent do not create sub-tenancy under the Rent Act, the finding of sub-letting cannot be upheld.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Dipak Banerjee; Respondent: Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 July 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Under Article 136 From a High Court Judgment Affirming Lower Court Findings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sub Letting, Eviction, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Rent Control
Tenancy Law Constitutional Law Sub Letting Eviction Concurrent Findings of Fact Rent Control

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dipak Banerjee

Appellant

Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Under Article 136 From a High Court Judgment Affirming Lower Court Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the essential ingredients for sub-letting under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956 were proved
  2. 2 Whether services in lieu of right of occupation amount to receipt of rent so as to create sub-tenancy under the Rent Act

Ratio Decidendi

As there was no finding of exclusive possession or payment of money in exchange for use of part of the premises, and as services in lieu of rent do not create sub-tenancy under the Rent Act, the finding of sub-letting cannot be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment and order of the High Court and the courts below are set aside.
  • The claim for ejectment is dismissed.