SANTOSH AJIT SACHDEVAND ORS. versus ANOOPI SHAHANI

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 21-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANTOSH AJIT SACHDEV A AND ORS. 
v. 
ANOOPI SHAHANI 
AUGUST 21, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Eviction-On the ground of subletting of premises by tenant to a 
C Company-Tenants' case that business of the Company was run by tenant as 
its Managing Director-Dismissal of eviction suit since tenant holding 
majority of shares of the Company and thus, found to be controlling the 
whole business of the Company-Appellate Authority as well as High Court 
holding that mere holding of majority of shares of Company not sujjicient to 
D prove that tenant was actually controlling and managing the business-but 
something more was required and tenant unable to prove the same-On 
appeal, held: In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by Appellate 
Court and High Court, no reason to take a different view-Bombay Rents, 
Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947_.:_s. 13 (l)(e). 
E 
Respondent-plaintiff let out the suit premises to AS. AS died and his 
wife, appellant- defendant no. 1 became tenant of plaintiff in respect of the 
suit premises. Plaintiff contended that defendant No. 2 was proprietary concern 
of defendant No. 1; and that defendant No. 1 unlawfully sublet the suit premises 
to defendant No. 3-Impression Advertising Pvt Ltd., defendant no 4 and 5. 
F 
Plaintiff filed eviction suit against defendant No. 1. Defendant no. I contended 
that she and her husband registered Impression Advertising Pvt Ltd. and were 
its Directors and during lifetime of AS, they carried out the business in the 
name of Impression Advertising and Marketing; that after death of AS, 
defendant nos. I, 2 and 3 were remitting rent to the plaintiff; that the business 
of defendant No. 3 was run by the defendant no. I as the Managing Director; 
G that defendant No. I carried on the business in the name of the defendant No. 
2 and the premises continued to remain in her custody and control and 
defendant No. 3 did not claim any right or claim in the suit premises. Trial 
court dismissed the eviction suit since the defendant No. I was holding 
majority of the shares of the said company and thus, was found to be 
H 
204 
,-
SANTOSH AJIT SACHDEVA v. ANOOPI SHAHANI [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 205 
controlling the whole business. Respondent-plaintiff filed appeal. Appellate A 
.. Authority held that the appellant was merely having a majority share-holding 
by which it could not be concluded that she was in actual control of the business 
of the company in suit premises. Defendant no 1 filed writ petition. High Court 
upheld the finding recorded by the first appellate court and dismissed the 
writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the instant case, as per the finding of fact recorded by the 
appellate court as well as by the High Court that the appellant-defendant has 
B 
not been able to successfully prove that she is controlling the company, C 
appellate court held that merely by holding a large number of shares is not 
sufficient but something more is required to prove that she is actually 
controlling and managing the business herself. That finding of the appellate 
court has been upheld by the High Court. Hence, in view of the concurrent 
finding of both the courts below, there is no reason to take a different view of 
the matter. [Para 8] [209-A, B] 
D 
Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) v. Inder Singh, (1986] 3 SCC 
62 and Sail Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, (20051 
(8) sec 252, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1386 of2005. 
E 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 29. I I .2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 7701/2204. 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Vilas Naik, Amit K. Singh, Shantanu Krishna, Mukti 
· Chowdhary Rahul Joshi and Shivaji M Jadhav for the Appellant. 
F 
P.P. Rao, Ravindra Srivastava, Kunal Verma, R. Srivasatava, M. Manan 
and C.G. Solshe for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. MATHUR, J. I. This Appeal is directed against the order passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 770 I of 2004 
on 29th November, 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the 
order of the appellate court under the provisions of Section I 3(1 )( e) of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. 
G 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal 

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