https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313858 In eviction proceedings based on subletting, proof of exclusive possession by a third party can justify an inference that the tenant has parted with possession and created a sub-tenancy. Direct evidence of monetary consideration between tenant and alleged sub-tenant is not invariably required, because such arrangements are often clandestine and consideration may be inferred from proved circumstances. Authorities on permissive occupation or family arrangements do not displace this principle when they rest on different facts. On the facts, exclusive possession and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to sustain the finding of subletting under the Delhi Rent Control Act. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313858 In eviction proceedings based on subletting, proof of exclusive possession by a third party can justify an inference that the tenant has parted with possession and created a sub-tenancy. Direct evidence of monetary consideration between tenant and alleged sub-tenant is not invariably required, because such arrangements are often clandestine and consideration may be inferred from proved circumstances. Authorities on permissive occupation or family arrangements do not displace this principle when they rest on different facts. On the facts, exclusive possession and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to sustain the finding of subletting under the Delhi Rent Control Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313858