DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD. versus SHYAM SUNDER GANERIWALLA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 09-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD. 
A 
v. 
SHY AM SUNDER GANERIWALLA AND ANR. 
APRIL 9, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 105 and 107- Lease or 
,,, .:Jnce---Test to determine-Intention of the parties under the agreement-
A.1·i.:ertainment of such intention-Where camouflage is alleged or is apparent 
the intention has to be gathered from the terms of such agreement-In case C 
of camouflage or attempt to avoid the rigours of any legislation, the mask 
is to be removed or veil lifted from the self-serving instrument and true 
intention to be gathered from the relevant circumstances-In cases of cpntracts 
expressly for licence with exclusive possession of the property, then there 
remains a very narrow distinction between licence and lease-In such cases, D 
terms of the agreement be read literally without any inference whether the 
parties intended to cause a landlord-tenant relationship-In cases where 
tenant himself having no right, title or interest to create sub-tenancy hands 
over possession of property fo third person, such third person. cannot claim 
to be a sub-tenant-A person having no right cannot confer any title of 
tenancy or sub-tenancy-Having regard to the terms and of the agreement E 
. as a whole, the agreement held to be one of leave and licence and not of 
lease-W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, Section 14(1). 
Deeds and Documents-Construction of agreement-Intention of parties 
to the agreement-In case the terms of the agreement having two meanings, F 
the lawful meaning should be preferred-In case of parties capable of 
understanding their rights fully and having agreed that the document to be 
construed in a particular way-No .inference should be drawn so as to 
construe it in a· different way. 
Words and Phrases-Words "demise" and "demised premises"- G 
Meaning of-In the context of lease and licence-Easements Act, 1882. 
The original owner of the suit premises created a tenancy iii favour of 
M, a private limited Co. Appellant-pl1intitr, was inducted into the suit premises 
as monthly tenant under M. Appellant was maintaining and running a petrol 
service station for sale of motor spares and components at .the tenanted H 
541 
-542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 2 S.C.R. 
·A premises and had erected. certain structures on the said premises. Appellant 
was subsequently amalgamated. By an agreement, appellant executed a leave 
and licence agreement in favour of ESSO, which -in turn permitted the 
respondent to run the petrol service station. In clause 12 of the agreement 
it ~as mentioned that it was only a licence and that the agreement should 
not be tr.eated or used or dealt with or construed by the parties in any way 
B as lease or to confer any relationship as landlord and tenants between the 
parties. Clause 18 of the agreement provided for the "licence fee" for the 
demised premises and the same was payable for the said demised premises 
.as provided therein, i.e. a sum totalling to six months' fee for this premises 
to be paid in advance and to be adjusted per month. Specific provision was 
C made in the deed that after obtaining the consent of the landlord, the licensor 
would grant a sub-lease in respect of the said premises for a perio~ of at least 
. ten years and the licem1or would endeavour to obtain a lease on the terms 
. . 
. . 
' 
which would not be inconsistent with the standard terms on which a sub-
. 
. 
. 
lease was obtained by the licensee and the standard form of the ·lease was 
also attached with the deed; Jn the agreement it was provided that the licensee 
D was not obliged to pay any part of the outgoings in respect C)f the premises 
which indicates that the charges attendant upon occupation of the plant and 
machinery at the said premises in good repair and was required to obtain 
necessary insurance policies for the business. The licensee was permitted 
to carry on the business in the name of the licensor. It was also specifically 
E provided in Clause 9 of the agreement that the licensor should be at liberty 
to withdraw and/or revoke the leave and licence in ~ase there was any default 
of the terms mentioned in the document. Clause 16 of the deed further 
provided that.if the sub-lease was to be granted, then the license~ would be 
required to purchase the equipment, fittings and fixtures as mentiOned in the 
F 
Second Schedule a(a price menti6ned therein Within a period of one year 
from the date thereof. Admittedly, the sub-lea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.