TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under section 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the order declaring a sub-tenant to be a direct tenant was final and could not be rescinded because the original tenant's tenancy was later determined by an ejectment decree; and whether the sub-tenant was entitled to the statutory protection because the original tenant continued to be a tenant within the Act until the decree was passed.
Analysis: Section 16(3) was held to contain two distinct stages: first, a declaration that the tenant's interest in the sub-let portion had ceased and the sub-tenant had become a direct tenant under the landlord; second, fixation of rent. The declaration made at the first stage was treated as final so far as the Controller was concerned and not as a mere interlocutory step capable of rescission on the basis of later events. The inclusive definition of "tenant" in section 2(h) was applied to hold that a person whose tenancy had been determined by notice continued to be a tenant under the Act until a decree for eviction was made. Since the original tenant remained a tenant until the ejectment decree, the sub-tenant remained entitled to invoke section 16(3). The later decree and other subsequent developments could not undo the earlier declaration, and the Controller had no power under review or inherent jurisdiction provisions to cancel an order that was correct when made.
Conclusion: The declaration in favour of the sub-tenant under section 16(3) was valid and final, the Controller lacked jurisdiction to rescind it on the basis of subsequent events, and the respondent's statutory claim succeeded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
