TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Affirms Subletting Findings, Grants Time to Vacate Premises Despite Lack of Proof of Consideration.</h1> <h3>Bharat Sales Ltd. Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India</h3> Bharat Sales Ltd. Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India - TMI Issues:Eviction based on subletting without proof of consideration.Analysis:The case involved a long legal battle starting in 1965 when the respondent, a landlord, filed for eviction of the petitioner due to subletting. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction in 1974, but the Rent Control Tribunal overturned it in 1978. The matter went to the High Court, which remanded it back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the subletting finding in 1997. The petitioner's subsequent appeals were dismissed, leading to the case reaching the Supreme Court.The main contention was the lack of proof of consideration in the subletting arrangement. The Court explained that subletting occurs when a tenant gives exclusive possession to another person without involving the landlord. Direct evidence of the agreement or payment of consideration is challenging to establish. The law allows courts to infer subletting based on exclusive possession, even without direct proof of monetary payment.The Court cited precedents to support its stance. In one case, it was held that exclusive possession implies a transaction for monetary consideration. Another case highlighted that direct evidence of payment is not always necessary to prove subletting. The Court distinguished cases where living arrangements within family members did not constitute subletting.Additionally, a case was referenced where the quality of occupation determined whether subletting occurred. In another case, the absence of monetary consideration led to a finding of no subletting. The Court emphasized that the presence of consideration is not a mandatory requirement in every subletting case.Ultimately, the Rent Controller and the Tribunal had found the petitioner guilty of subletting, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. However, considering the circumstances, the Court granted the petitioner time to vacate the premises to avoid further legal battles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
