B. M. LALL (DEAD) BY L. RS. versus DUNLOP RUBBER & CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 18-07-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
B. M. LALL (DEAD) BY L RS. 
11. 
DUNLOP RUBaER A CO. L1D. & Oils. 
'l_uly 18, .1967 
[R. S. 8AOIAWAT, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
23 
West Benoal Premises Tenancy Act (XII of 1956)-s. 13(1) _(/)-
Limited Company buyina premises f<>r 
housinQ o.tlicers-Whether 
o.tlicer'r occupation that of tenant or 'licensee'-and wheth.er Com-
pany's 'own occupation'. 
The respondent limited companies purchased certain premises 
In Calcutta for the purpose of providing residential accommodation 
C for their staff. They instituted suits against the appellants for the re-
covei;y of t;••te•i<>n of ~o flats on the ground that as these fla_ts were 
required or housing their officers, they were reasonably required for 
the occupation of the respondents within the meaning of s. 13(1) (f) 
of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1~6. 
The Trial Qourt dismissed the suits but the High Court allowed 
an appeal and held that a limited company can be a landlord wit!rln 
D 
the meaning of s. 13(1) (f) and can reasonably require the premises . 
for its own occupation; and that where there are several landlords, 
the requirement of the premises by the landlords for the occupation 
of one or more of them is sufficient to bring the case within s. 13(1) 
(f). In the appeal before the Supreme Coilrt the only question for de-
termination was whether on the construction of the terms of an agree-
ment which was normally signed between each of the respondents 
and any officer who was &Dotted a flat, the officer oceupied the flat 
E 
as a tenant or a licensee, and therefore whether the officer's occupa-
tion would be the company's own occupation within the meaning of 
clause (f). 
r 
Held: Dismissing the appeal: The High Court !lightly held 
that the respondent reasonably required the flats for the second 
respondent oomp&IJY's own occupation through officers holding flats 
m Its behalf as licensees. [29B] 
Under the standard form of agreement, the occupation of the 
officer ceased on the termination of his employment, upon his death, 
or on his transfer and the company was at liberty to allot him•· any 
other flat or to assign the premises to any other employee or other 
person during his absence. In view of these and its other terms the 
agreement operated as a license and not as a tenancy. It created no 
interest in the land and gave only a .personal privilege or license to 
G the servant to occupy thei premises for the greater convenience of 
his work. f28F-Hl 
Under s. 105 of. the Transfer of Property Act, a lease is the trans-
fer of a right to enjoy the premises whereas under s. 52 of the Indian 
Easements Act a license is a privilege to do something on. the premi-
ses which otherwise would be unlawful. The transaction is a leaae 
If It gralltll an Interest in the land; it is a licehse If It gives a perso-
B nal privilege with no interest in the land. [27E-F] 
. Errington v. Errington and Woods, [1952] 1 K; B. 290, 298: As.w-
cia~a Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. N. Kapoor. [1960] 1 S.C.R. 368; 381-5: 
Add1SCombe Garden Elfate1 !.td. and Anr. v. Crabbe and Ors. [1958] 
1 Q.B. 513, S2S; referred to. 
S'CIP!lmlO OOUllT BBPORTS 
[1968] I s.0.11. 
A service oceupatlon Is a 1>articular kind of license whereby a A 
servant is required to live in the premises for the better performance 
of hia duties. Nbw It is also settled law that a servant may be a 
licensee though he may not be in service occupation. [2'7H) 
Nippon Menkwa Kalmshiki v. F. Portlock, A.I.R 1922 Born. ?O; 
and Torbett v. Faulkner, [1952] 2 T .LR. 659, 560; referred to. 
OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICl10N: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 2253 B 
and 2254 of 1966. 
Appeals Crom the judgment and decree dated July 5, 1965 of 
the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Decrees NOi:. 
490 and 489 of 1960 respectively. 
Sarjoo Prasad and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant (in 0 
C. A. No. 2253 of 1966). 
Devaprosad Chaudhury and Sukumar Ghose, for the appel-
lant (Jn C. A. No. 2254 of 1966). 
A. K. Sen, S. K. Gamb/lir and D. N. Gupta, for the respon· 
dents (in both the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
lacUwat, l~The respondents are limited companies hav-
ing their head offices in Calcutta. On May 15, 1953, the two Com-
panies jointly purchased the premises known as 'King's Court' at 
No. 46B Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, for the purpose of provid-
ing residential accommodation for their staff. They instituted a 
suit against one B. M. Lall, since deceased, predecessor of the E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.