https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287428 A tenant does not sub-let or otherwise part with possession merely by converting his business into a private limited company and allowing that company to use the premises, where he retains control and legal possession. On the proved facts, the company's use of the room did not amount to an ouster of the tenant's possessory rights, so eviction on that ground could not stand. The separate claim for restoration of a bathroom as an essential amenity also failed, because the factual finding that the bathroom was not part of the tenancy, and that no essential amenity had been withheld, was not shown to be perverse. The eviction question succeeded, but the amenity claim remained rejected. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:25:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287428 A tenant does not sub-let or otherwise part with possession merely by converting his business into a private limited company and allowing that company to use the premises, where he retains control and legal possession. On the proved facts, the company's use of the room did not amount to an ouster of the tenant's possessory rights, so eviction on that ground could not stand. The separate claim for restoration of a bathroom as an essential amenity also failed, because the factual finding that the bathroom was not part of the tenancy, and that no essential amenity had been withheld, was not shown to be perverse. The eviction question succeeded, but the amenity claim remained rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287428