https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197701 A party disputing a written tenancy arrangement as sham must prove that plea with cogent and irresistible evidence; occupants who were not parties to the lease were not barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act from raising that challenge, but the record did not displace the written documents. For eviction, written consent was mandatory for transfer or subletting under the rent law, so oral consent could not defeat the statutory ground, and conversion of a hall into separate cabins supported material impairment of value and utility. The appellate eviction order was therefore restored. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197701 A party disputing a written tenancy arrangement as sham must prove that plea with cogent and irresistible evidence; occupants who were not parties to the lease were not barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act from raising that challenge, but the record did not displace the written documents. For eviction, written consent was mandatory for transfer or subletting under the rent law, so oral consent could not defeat the statutory ground, and conversion of a hall into separate cabins supported material impairment of value and utility. The appellate eviction order was therefore restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197701