https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190991 Sub-tenancy under the rent statute requires proof of exclusive possession of a distinct part of the premises and occupation held for consideration; on the record, neither exclusive possession nor any quantified monetary consideration was shown, so the alleged sub-tenancy was not established. Use of the premises for tailoring was also not proved to amount to a separate non-residential user, because the sewing activity was treated as part of the tenant's own arrangement and not an independent change of user. The eviction case therefore failed because the essential factual and legal ingredients of sub-letting and prohibited change of user were not made out. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:10:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190991 Sub-tenancy under the rent statute requires proof of exclusive possession of a distinct part of the premises and occupation held for consideration; on the record, neither exclusive possession nor any quantified monetary consideration was shown, so the alleged sub-tenancy was not established. Use of the premises for tailoring was also not proved to amount to a separate non-residential user, because the sewing activity was treated as part of the tenant's own arrangement and not an independent change of user. The eviction case therefore failed because the essential factual and legal ingredients of sub-letting and prohibited change of user were not made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190991