LexMD. SALIM versus MD. ALI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. MD. ASSIM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MD. SALIM
A
v.
MD. ALI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS
LRS. MD. ASSIM & ORS.
~
AUGUST 26, 1987.
B
t'
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-Definition of 'tenant' in
section 2(4) thereof-Whether the petitioner was a sub-tenant not bound
...
by decree of eviction against the tenant .
y
c
This petition for special leave to appeal was flied against the judg-
ment and order of the High Court, whereby the High Court had held
that the petitioner was not a sub-tenant and as such he was bound by the
decree passed against the tenant for eviction. The petitioner challenged
before this Court the finding of the High Court and contended that he
-"(
was a sub-tenant with the knowledge and consent of the landlord and as D
such the decree of eviction passed against the tenant did not bind him
because in the suit he had not been a party. He should have been made a
party to the suit.
Dismissing the petition, the Court,
, ..
E
....._
1
HELD: The High Court was right. The attention of the Court was
drawn to an agreement of Ist September, 1966, with the contention that
that was an arrangement of sub-letting and in that document one of the
attesting witnesses was the landlord himself, and, therefore, the sub-
letting was done with the knowledge and consent of the landlord and, as
such, was valid. [I088G]
F
One of the attesting witnesses to the said agreement was Md. Ali,
the respondent herein, who was at the relevant time the landlord, now
represented by his legal representatives in this petition. On a con-
struction of the different clauses of the aforesaid document, the Court
~ was of the opinion that this was an argreement of the business of the G
tenant. It was not and could not be construed as an agreement of sub-
tenancy. There was no parting of possession of the premises. There was
only a right to "manage" the business, looking after the 1,xisting busi-
ness with fixed monthly payments and this could not be construed as an
agreement of sub-tenancy. Therefore, though the landlord had know-
ledge of the document, it could not be said to be consent to an agreement H
1087
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A
of sub-tenancy. The attention of the Court was drawn to section 2(4) on
the expression 'tenant' in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
That definition did not affect the position of the petitioner in this case as
there was no sub-tenancy in the case. [1090C-E, G]
B
c
The High Court was right in the view it took. [1088F]
Mis. Girdhar Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and others,
[1968] 2 S.C.C. 237, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
No. 4!20of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24. 12.1986 of the High
Court of Calcutta in Civil Rule No. 676 of 1985.
R.B. Mehrotra for the Petitioner.
D
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petition for special
leave to appeal against an order and judgment of the High Court of
)
E
Calcutta dated 24th September, 1986. By the impugned judgment and ~-
-
order the High Court has held that the present petitioner was not a
.-
sub-tenant and as such he was bound by the decree passed against the
tenant for eviction. The petitioner challenges that finding and con-
tends that he was a sub-tenant with knowledge and consent of the
Y
landlord and as such it does not bind him because in the suit he was not
F
a party. There should have been a separate suit according to him. He
should have been made a party to the suit. The High Court has held
against this contention. We are of the view that the High Court was
right. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Kacker to the agreement of 1st
of September, 1966, contending that this was an arrangement of sub-
letting and in that document one of the attesting witness was landlord
G
himself. Therefore, this is done with the knowledge and consent of the ~
landlord and as such valid. The agreement states, inter alia as follows:
H
"THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this
the !st September 1966 BETWEEN ABDUR RAHA-
MAN son of late Nabi Buksh by religion Muslim, by pro-
fession business of 51/I, Watgunj Street, P.S. Watgunj
"'
-4
,.,
-
"{
MD. SALIM v. MD. ALI [MUKHARJI, J.]
1089
District 24-Parganas, Calcutta-23, hereinafter called the
FIRST PARTY OF THE ONE PART AND MD. SALIM
son of Waris Ali, by religion Muslim by profession businesExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.