https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282947 The SC construed the 1 September 1966 agreement as a management arrangement, not a sub-tenancy, because it authorised the petitioner to manage the existing business for fixed monthly payments while the first party retained proprietorship. The document did not confer exclusive possession of the premises or show parting with possession, both essential indicia of sub-tenancy. The landlord's attestation and knowledge of the arrangement did not by themselves amount to consent to a lawful sub-tenancy. The statutory definition of tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not assist the petitioner because no sub-tenancy was created, and the eviction decree therefore remained binding. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:25:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282947 The SC construed the 1 September 1966 agreement as a management arrangement, not a sub-tenancy, because it authorised the petitioner to manage the existing business for fixed monthly payments while the first party retained proprietorship. The document did not confer exclusive possession of the premises or show parting with possession, both essential indicia of sub-tenancy. The landlord's attestation and knowledge of the arrangement did not by themselves amount to consent to a lawful sub-tenancy. The statutory definition of tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not assist the petitioner because no sub-tenancy was created, and the eviction decree therefore remained binding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282947