https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275086 On a true construction of the lease and agreement to lease, a lessee who was to erect and complete the building at its own expense retained ownership of the structure during the term under Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, absent a contrary contract. A clause requiring delivery of the premises and erections on termination did not transfer present ownership to the lessor. The Court held that ownership may be divided for a limited period where one party has dominion, control, and risk, and on that basis the premises belonged to the lessee, not the local authority, for purposes of sub-tenancies. The premises were therefore not excluded by Section 4(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, and the civil court lacked jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:28:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275086 On a true construction of the lease and agreement to lease, a lessee who was to erect and complete the building at its own expense retained ownership of the structure during the term under Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, absent a contrary contract. A clause requiring delivery of the premises and erections on termination did not transfer present ownership to the lessor. The Court held that ownership may be divided for a limited period where one party has dominion, control, and risk, and on that basis the premises belonged to the lessee, not the local authority, for purposes of sub-tenancies. The premises were therefore not excluded by Section 4(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, and the civil court lacked jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Jan 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275086