Separate corporate personality and paid occupation by subsidiaries can amount to illegal subletting under tenancy law.

Permitting subsidiary companies, treated as separate legal entities, to occupy tenancy premises for rent or reimbursement can amount to subletting, assignment, or transfer under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. A holding-subsidiary relationship does not by itself negate transfer of legal possession where consideration is paid by the subsidiaries and the arrangement places them in actual occupation. Acceptance of such consideration, together with occupation by the subsidiaries' officers, satisfies the ingredients of illegal subletting even if the arrangement later ended before the suit. On these facts, illegal subletting was established in favour of the two subsidiaries and eviction was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether permitting subsidiary companies, treated as separate legal entities, to occupy the tenancy premises on payment of rent or reimbursement amounts to subletting, assignment, or transfer within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

Analysis: The tenancy issue turned on whether legal possession had been transferred to another juristic person for consideration. The existence of a holding-subsidiary relationship did not negate the separate legal personality of the companies. Once payment in the nature of rent or reimbursement for occupation by the subsidiary companies was established, the arrangement amounted to transfer of legal possession and not mere internal control by the holding company. The Court further noted that actual possession by officers of the subsidiary companies, coupled with acceptance of consideration from those companies, satisfied the ingredients of subletting even if the arrangement had later ceased before the suit.

Conclusion: The plaintiff proved illegal subletting in favour of the two subsidiary companies, and the eviction decree was warranted in favour of the appellant.

---