https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313755 A pre-1 February 1973 induction in possession remained protected under Section 15(2) of the Bombay Rent Act where the evidence showed the second defendant was already occupying the premises before the cut-off date and continued thereafter. The later 1978 sub-lease deed merely formalised and continued the earlier arrangement; it did not create a fresh, unprotected transaction or revive eviction liability under Section 13(1)(e). On that basis, the eviction decree could not be sustained and the suit for possession was liable to be dismissed. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313755 A pre-1 February 1973 induction in possession remained protected under Section 15(2) of the Bombay Rent Act where the evidence showed the second defendant was already occupying the premises before the cut-off date and continued thereafter. The later 1978 sub-lease deed merely formalised and continued the earlier arrangement; it did not create a fresh, unprotected transaction or revive eviction liability under Section 13(1)(e). On that basis, the eviction decree could not be sustained and the suit for possession was liable to be dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313755