AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for long time. For the purpose of this appeal as the decree was not passed on the ground of default it is not necessary to go into detail regarding the correctness of that allegation. The ground on which the suit proceeded and which resulted in this appeal is whether the delendant had sublet or parted with the possession of two rooms out of four to Lalit Mohan Biswas and he has established tailoring business there. Therefore, sub-letting without the written consent of the landlord either the whole or part of the building in violation of section 13(1)(a) of West Bengal Premises Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Rent Act') and user for non-residential purpose of tailoring the premises let out for residential purposes, in violation of section 13(1)(h) of the Rent Act are two offences alleged against the tenant. There was one Mritunjoy Mukherjee who opened a Music School there for more than four months prior thereto without the written consent of the landlord. Mr. Mritunjoy Mukherjee is no longer in the picture and his case was not pressed any further. The main contention was whether the premises in question was sub-let to Lalit Mohan Biswas who had established some tailoring busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....man. It was further in evidence that Lalit Mohan Biswas was doing some sewing work for the tenant and he was also doing some independent works for others and it did come out in the evidence that he used to take meals with the tenant. The evidence of the tenant was that Lalit Mohan Biswas was allowed to occupy part of the premises due to pity and charity and further he was sewing in the house without any rent. He did some work for the tenant and his family members and for others. On this evidence the learned trial judge, in the absence of the evidence of Lalit Mohan Biswas, drew the inference that there was sub-tenancy in favour of Lalit Biswas. There was an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Alipore and he discussed the evidence and upheld the said finding. There was a further appeal before the High Court and the High Court also did not interfere with the findings of the Courts below. In the premises the question arises whether the High Court was right in law. It is true that in second appeal no court, and in the instant case the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. It was rightly pointed out and it is well-settled law by this Court not to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., this Court reiterated that finding of fact regarding those persons would not be interfered with. But where the finding has been arrived at without finding the basic facts, it cannot be sustained. There is another aspect of the matter, i.e., the payment of rent for sub-tenancy or consideration for sub-tenancy. Undoubtedly the alleged sub-tenant rendered certain services to the tenant but can the same be considered as rent under the Rent Act? Section 14(1) of the said Act prohibits subtenancy and it was pointed out before us that receipt of service in lieu of the occupation of a part of the premises as a Iicensee did not amount to payment or receipt of rent. Sub-tenancy as such is not defined in the Act. The subtenancy under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is governed by section 105 of the said Act and it defines sub-leases as a lease of immovable property as a transfer of right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied. or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r use of the above mentioned accommodation the defendants cleaned part of the house, cooked for him and paid electricity, gas and fuel bills for the whole of the house. On more than one occasion C refused to accept any payment of rent. The arrangement continued from 1951 until C's death in February, 1969. The interests of C were then surrendered to the plaintiffs who were the landlords. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the whole house. The county court judge ruled that the defendants were tenants within the protection of the Rent Acts, and were not licensees, since the services rendered by defendants, according to the county court judge constituted rent. The court of appeal in England held that the defendants were granted personal privilege of occupation and not tenancy. It was further held that even if there was a tenancy, the Rent Acts did not apply to it, because there was no agreed monetary quantification of the rent nor any agreed method of quantification. Sachs LJ. observed at page 484 of the report as follows:- "That the rendering of services can constitute rent at common law is well settled but whether it can, when there has been no quantification of their value, con....