https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171074 A State repeal statute did not abate an already instituted Article 136 proceeding, because a special leave petition is part of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction and cannot be curtailed by clear implication from a State enactment; the proceeding therefore survived for decision on merits. On sub-letting, the Court held that the landlord must show parting with legal possession or control of the premises, and a mere conversion of a tenant's sole proprietorship into a partnership, especially with family members and without proof of exclusive possession by outsiders, is not enough. Sub-letting was not proved, and the eviction ground under the rent law failed. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171074 A State repeal statute did not abate an already instituted Article 136 proceeding, because a special leave petition is part of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction and cannot be curtailed by clear implication from a State enactment; the proceeding therefore survived for decision on merits. On sub-letting, the Court held that the landlord must show parting with legal possession or control of the premises, and a mere conversion of a tenant's sole proprietorship into a partnership, especially with family members and without proof of exclusive possession by outsiders, is not enough. Sub-letting was not proved, and the eviction ground under the rent law failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171074