M/S. S.F. ENGINEER versus METAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

M/S. S.F. ENGINEER versus METAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

Handing over of possession to defendant 2 was in accordance with lease terms and service conditions; no independent arrangement or monetary consideration proven between defendant 1 and defendant 2 after resignation. Withholding of retiral dues is not consideration. Legitimate inference of sub-letting was not established by the facts. High Court properly exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside erroneous inference by courts below.

Parties
Appellant: S.F. Engineer; Respondent 1: Metal Box India Ltd.; Respondent 2: Respondent 2 (employee of Metal Box India Ltd.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against High Court's Revision Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sub Letting, Legitimate Inference, Revisional Jurisdiction
Rent Control Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Sub Letting Legitimate Inference Revisional Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.F. Engineer

Appellant

Metal Box India Ltd.

Respondent 1

Respondent 2 (employee of Metal Box India Ltd.)

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against High Court's Revision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was unauthorized subletting under s.13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 justifying eviction
  2. 2 Scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under rent laws

Ratio Decidendi

Handing over of possession to defendant 2 was in accordance with lease terms and service conditions; no independent arrangement or monetary consideration proven between defendant 1 and defendant 2 after resignation. Withholding of retiral dues is not consideration. Legitimate inference of sub-letting was not established by the facts. High Court properly exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside erroneous inference by courts below.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs