Sub-tenancy requires exclusive possession; mere management of business and landlord's knowledge do not create lawful sub-tenancy.

The SC construed the 1 September 1966 agreement as a management arrangement, not a sub-tenancy, because it authorised the petitioner to manage the existing business for fixed monthly payments while the first party retained proprietorship. The document did not confer exclusive possession of the premises or show parting with possession, both essential indicia of sub-tenancy. The landlord's attestation and knowledge of the arrangement did not by themselves amount to consent to a lawful sub-tenancy. The statutory definition of tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not assist the petitioner because no sub-tenancy was created, and the eviction decree therefore remained binding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement dated 1 September 1966 created a sub-tenancy or only an arrangement for management of the business, and whether the landlord's knowledge of the document amounted to consent to a sub-tenancy.

Analysis: On construction of the document, the arrangement showed only that the petitioner was authorised to manage the existing business for fixed monthly payments while the first party remained the proprietor. The terms did not confer exclusive possession of the premises or show parting with possession, which are essential indicia of sub-tenancy. The landlord's attestation and knowledge of the arrangement could not, by themselves, convert a management arrangement into a lawful sub-tenancy. The statutory definition of tenant under section 2(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not assist the petitioner because no sub-tenancy was created.

Conclusion: The agreement did not create a sub-tenancy, and the petitioner remained bound by the eviction decree; the challenge failed.

---