LABANYA NEOGI THROUGH LRS., POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI DR. SUBHASIS NEOGI versus W.B. ENGINEERING COMPANY

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 07-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LABANY A NEOGI THROUGH LRS., POWER OF ATTORNEY 
HOLDER SHRI DR. SUBHASIS NEOGI 
v. 
W.B. ENGINEERING COMPANY 
B 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
C 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: Section 14. 
Sub-letting-Proof of-Landlord inducted partnership firm as tenant 
for residential purposes-Employee of said firm, who was also the son-in-law 
of one of the partners, occupied the house as tenant right from the inception 
of tenancy-Later said firm dissolved and employee became its sole owner-
D Held: To establish sub-letting abandonment or transfer of tenancy must be 
proved-Since this is not the case, sub-letting not established-Further, the 
fact that tenant is the son-in-law is of no consequence since he is not 
claiming tenancy as a son-in-law but as owner of the firm-High Court 
rightly dismissed second appeal as no substantial question of law involved 
E 
The respondent-partnership firm was a tenant of the suit premises 
belonging to the appellant-landlady. The tenancy was for residential purposes. 
T, who was an employee of the firm and also the son-in-law of one of the 
partners, was in occupation of the suit premises right from the inception of 
the tenancy. Subsequently partnership firm was dissolved and T became the 
F sole owner of the firm and continued to reside in the suit premises with his 
family. 
The appellant filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of personal use 
and occupation and sub-letting. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the 
ground of personal use and occupation only. The ground of sub-letting was 
G rejected. However, the first appellate court set aside the decree on the ground 
that the appellant failed to prove that 'the suit premises were required for 
personal use and occupation. The High Court dismissed the second appeal 
on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved. Hence this 
appeal 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
228 
... 
LABANYA THROUGH LRS. v. W.B. ENGG. CO. [PHUKAN, J.] 229 
HELD: 1.1. To establish sub-letting, the landlady has to prove A 
abandonment or transfer of interest in favour of another person. In the 
instant case, the tenancy was between the landlady and the respondent which 
was originally a partnership firm and from the records of this case, it 
transpires that T became the sole owner. The original tenancy,was for the 
purpose of residential accommodation of the firm and right from the inception B 
of the tenancy Twas in occupation of the suit premises. Therefore, there was 
no abandonment or transfer of the tenancy by the respondent-firm, the 
tenant. (232-C-D] 
1.2. Further, T is not claiming tenancy in his capacity as a son-in-law 
but as an owner of the firm. The High Court rightly dismissed the second c 
appeal as no substantial question of law was involved. (232-G; 231-A] 
Pu/in Beshari Lal v. Mahadeseb Dutta, (1993) 1 SCC 629~ referred to. 
S.A. Vengadamma v. Jitendra Vor~ [1997) 11 SCC 334, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9127 of D 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.95 of the Calcutta High Court 
in S.A.T. No. 1654of1995. 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Himanshu Munshi, Anip Sachthe and Braj Shiv Rajesh E 
Roshan Agrajit for the Appellant. 
Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. This appeal is by the landlady against the judgment and F 
order of the High Court of Calcutta in SA No. 709 of 1995. By the impugned 
judgment, the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the present 
appellant against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court namely Assist8:Jlt 
District Judge at Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 58/91. 
The Lower ·Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court G 
namely Third Munsiff Sealdah in Title Suit No. 523/81. The Appellant filed a 
suit for ejectment and mesne profit against the respondent on the grounds 
--
· - of personal use and occupation, subletting and other grounds. In the present 
appeal only above two grounds have been urged, namely, subletting and 
bgnafide requirement. 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the suit premises 
were required for personal use and occupation by the landlady. The ground 
of subletting was rejected . 
The Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on 
the ground that the landlady failed to prove that the suit p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.