9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of an agreement for management of business as sub-tenancy. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an agreement for the management of a business should be considered a sub-tenancy in the case at hand. The petitioner contended that he was a sub-tenant with the landlord's knowledge and consent, arguing that he should have been made a party to the eviction suit separately. However, the High Court held that the petitioner was not a sub-tenant and was bound by the eviction decree against the tenant. The Court examined the agreement dated 1st September 1966, which outlined the terms between the parties. The agreement specified that the second party would manage the business on behalf of the first party for a fixed term, making fixed monthly payments and bearing incidental costs. The Court noted that there was no exclusive possession granted to the respondent, and the arrangement was for managing the business, not for sub-tenancy. The Court referred to a previous decision in M/s Girdbar Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Matbur and Others, where consent by the landlord to sub-tenancy was considered valid. However, in the present case, the Court found that the agreement did not create a sub-tenancy. The Court also examined the definition of 'tenant' under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, but concluded that it did not apply as there was no sub-tenancy established in this case. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the petitioner was not a sub-tenant and was bound by the eviction decree against the tenant. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
