https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193810 A tenant does not sublet or part with possession merely because a closely connected private company operates from the same premises. The Supreme Court noted that the tenant-firm continued in occupation, the company was formed by the firm's partners, used the premises as its office, and functioned in a mutually arranged relationship with the firm. On those facts, the company was treated as the firm's alter ego or corporate reflection, so distinct legal personality alone was insufficient to show divestment of legal possession or creation of a sub-tenancy under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. en-us Mon, 05 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:24:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193810 A tenant does not sublet or part with possession merely because a closely connected private company operates from the same premises. The Supreme Court noted that the tenant-firm continued in occupation, the company was formed by the firm's partners, used the premises as its office, and functioned in a mutually arranged relationship with the firm. On those facts, the company was treated as the firm's alter ego or corporate reflection, so distinct legal personality alone was insufficient to show divestment of legal possession or creation of a sub-tenancy under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193810