Tenant retains possession despite company use of premises; mere corporate use is not subletting or parting with possession.
A tenant does not sub-let or otherwise part with possession merely by converting his business into a private limited company and allowing that company to use the premises, where he retains control and legal possession. On the proved facts, the company's use of the room did not amount to an ouster of the tenant's possessory rights, so eviction on that ground could not stand. The separate claim for restoration of a bathroom as an essential amenity also failed, because the factual finding that the bathroom was not part of the tenancy, and that no essential amenity had been withheld, was not shown to be perverse. The eviction question succeeded, but the amenity claim remained rejected.
Issues: (i) Whether the tenant had sub-let, assigned, or otherwise parted with possession of the premises by forming a private limited company and allowing it to use the room; (ii) Whether the tenant was entitled to restoration of the bathroom as an essential amenity under the rent control provision.
Issue (i): Whether the tenant had sub-let, assigned, or otherwise parted with possession of the premises by forming a private limited company and allowing it to use the room.
Analysis: The tenancy was found to have been taken in the tenant's own name, and his later conversion of the business into a private limited company in which he retained controlling interest did not, by itself, establish an ouster from legal possession. Mere user of the premises by the company, where the tenant remained in control and in legal possession, was not enough to constitute subletting or parting with possession. The finding of eviction based on the tenant's mistaken written statement was held to be unsound because the proved facts showed retention of possession by the tenant.
Conclusion: The alleged subletting or parting with possession was not proved, and the eviction order could not stand.
Issue (ii): Whether the tenant was entitled to restoration of the bathroom as an essential amenity under the rent control provision.
Analysis: The authorities below had found, as a matter of fact, that the bathroom was not included in the tenancy and that no essential supply or amenity had been withheld. That factual finding was not shown to be perverse or otherwise open to interference in second appeal.
Conclusion: The claim for restoration of the bathroom failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the eviction question, but the rejection of the amenity claim was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant does not part with possession merely by permitting a company in which he retains control to use the premises, so long as he retains legal possession and there is no complete ouster of his possessory rights.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
