TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the lease was validly determined for long and continuing breach, including absence of press activity and misuse of the demised premises; (ii) whether transfer of shares to another company amounted to a prohibited transfer attracting the lease covenant; (iii) whether proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were available after determination of the lease.
Issue (i): whether the lease was validly determined for long and continuing breach, including absence of press activity and misuse of the demised premises
Analysis: The premises were granted for a specific purpose, namely, press and newspaper publication, with limited commercial use permitted on specified floors. On the record, press activity had ceased for a prolonged period and the premises were being used mainly for commercial purposes. The later resumption of digital and limited print publication, after proceedings had commenced, did not efface the long-standing breach. The alleged rectification was therefore insufficient to defeat the landlord's right to act on a continuing breach of the lease conditions.
Conclusion: The determination of the lease on this ground was upheld and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether transfer of shares to another company amounted to a prohibited transfer attracting the lease covenant
Analysis: Although a shareholder ordinarily does not acquire any proprietary interest in the assets of a company, the Court applied the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil to examine the substance of the transaction. The sequence of incorporation, assignment of debt, alteration in shareholding, and acquisition of controlling shareholding was treated as a device by which the beneficial enjoyment of the leased property was effectively transferred without the lessor's approval. In substance, the transaction was held to amount to a transfer of the lease interest within the prohibition contained in the lease covenant.
Conclusion: The share transfer was held to be a prohibited transfer and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (iii): whether proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were available after determination of the lease
Analysis: Once the lease stood determined, the occupation fell within the statutory definition of unauthorised occupation. The Constitution Bench authority on the Public Premises Act was followed to hold that a person continuing in occupation after determination of a lease of public premises can be proceeded against under that Act. The earlier decision relied upon by the appellant was distinguished on its facts and did not exclude the statutory remedy in the present case.
Conclusion: The availability of proceedings under the Public Premises Act was affirmed and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The lease determination and the refusal to interfere with it were sustained, and the intra-court appeal failed in entirety.
Ratio Decidendi: Where public premises are leased for a specific public purpose, prolonged deviation from that purpose and a transaction that in substance transfers the beneficial enjoyment of the lease without consent can justify determination of the lease and treatment of the occupant as unauthorised after such determination.
TaxTMI 
