Proprietary concern cannot create a separate tenancy in owner's premises without a distinct transferee and valid transfer.

A proprietary concern has no separate legal existence from its proprietor, so a lease or transferable interest in the proprietor's own premises requires a legally distinct transferee and valid transfer. Rent receipts alone did not prove that the attached premises had been validly transferred out of the applicant's ownership or that a separate tenancy had been created in favour of another legal entity. The applicant also failed to prove the extent of any alleged occupation by the respondent, while the respondent's registered office was shown at the premises. On that evidence, no legally recognizable right, title, or interest was established to displace execution attachment, which was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the attachment of the premises could be raised on the basis that the applicant, through his proprietary concern, had created a tenancy or other transferable interest in the premises in favour of that concern, and whether the rent receipts produced were sufficient to establish a separate legal interest defeating execution.

Analysis: A proprietary concern has no legal existence distinct from its proprietor, and a transfer or lease ordinarily requires two separate legal persons. The materials relied on by the applicant did not show a transfer of the property or creation of a valid tenancy in favour of another legal entity. The rent receipts only indicated collection of rent and did not establish that the attached premises had been validly transferred out of the applicant's ownership. The extent of the premises allegedly occupied by the respondent was also not proved, while the respondent's registered office was shown at the premises sought to be protected from execution. On the evidence, the applicant failed to establish a legally recognizable right, title, or interest sufficient to displace the attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment could not be raised, and the applicant's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The execution attachment over the premises was sustained, and the chamber summons was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A proprietor cannot, by merely describing his business as a proprietary concern or by issuing rent receipts, create a valid lease or transferable interest in his own favour unless a legally distinct transferee and a valid transfer are shown.

---