UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus COOKS AND KELVEY PROPERTIES (P) LTD.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 12-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

----
-· 
-
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
COOKS AND KELVEY PROPERTIES (P) LTD. 
MAY 12, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Tenancy Law : 17ie West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: 
Section 13(1) (a)-Eviction of tenant-Protection against-Tenant 
Bank inducting its en1ployees' trade union into suit pren1ises to carry on trade 
union activities-Bank receiving no nionetary consideration and retaining its 
power to call upon union to vacate pre1nises at any tinie, as also maintaining 
premises and paying electricity bills, thereof-Held, existence of consideration, 
an ingredient of sub-letting not present-Tenant had been retaining legal 
possession of premises-11iere is no transfer of right to enjoy premises by trade 
union exclusively, for consideration. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Section 105-Leas~A tenant who 
transfers or assigns his nght, in tenancy held by him, for consideration, creates 
sub-tenancy. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The respondent-landlord filed a suit in the High Court for ejectment E 
of the appellant-Bank, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant, after 
taking the demised premises on rent, sub-let it to the Association of Bank's 
Employees, a trade Union, without landlord's consent and thereby con· 
travened s.13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The 
Single Judge dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Division Bench decreed F 
the suit. The tenant-Bank filed the appeal by special leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the legal possession 
of the demised premises was with the Bank which had control over the trade 
union and had reserved the right to ask the trade union at any time to 
deliver the possession back to it; that the appellant had been taking care of G 
the maintenance of the premises at its own expenses, and paying the 
municipal taxes in respect thereof, but had not been collecting any rent 
from the trade union. It was also contended that s.13(1)(a) has no applica· 
lion to the non-residential buildings. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the trade union H 
55 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11994] S.UPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
admittedly being in exclusive possession of the premises for its trade union 
activities which has no connection with the bank's activities, the only in-
ference that could be dra"n was that the appellant had parted mth the 
possession of the demised premises in favour of the trade union and for 
consideration, and the subletting, was therefore, established. 
B 
Allomng the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It cannot be said that the appellant had sub-let the 
demised premises so as to make it liable for eviction under s.13(1) (a) of the 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (62-D] 
C 
1.2. From the evidence it is clear that though the appellant had 
D 
E 
F 
inducted the trade union into the suit premises for carrying on the trade 
union activities, it has nOt received any monetary consideration from the 
trade union. Thus, the Existence of consideration, an ingredient of sub-let-
ting, has not been proved. (61-G] 
1.3. The President of the trade union, in his cross-examination, stated 
that the Bank had retained its power to call upon the Union to vacate the 
premises at any time and the Union has given such an undertaking. It is 
also staled that the Bank has been maintaining the premises at its own 
expenses and also paying the electricity charges. Thus, the appellant had 
retained its legal control of the possession of the premises and let the trade 
u11ion to occupy it for trade union activities. Though the trade union was 
in possession of the premises, the possession must be deemed to be con-
structive possession held by it on behalf of the Bank. The Bank retains its 
control over the trade union whose membership is confined to the 
employees of the Bank. Jn the circumstances, there is no transfer of right 
to enjoy the premises by the trade union exclusively for consideration. 
(61-H, 62-A-C] 
Deepak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, (1987] 3 SCR 680;/agan 
Nath (deceased) through Lrs. v. Chander Bhan & Ors., (1988] l Suppl. SCR 
325; Gopa/ Saran v.Satyanarayana, (1989] l SCR 767 and Delhi Stationers & 
G Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, (1990] 2 sec 331, relied on. 
Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. Mis Chokesiri & Co., (1989] 1 SCC 19 and 
Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra, (1988] 1 SCC 383, referred 
to. 
H 
2. The provision of s.13(l)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy 
'
-.. -
--
• 
UNITED BANK OF I

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