SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 193

J.M.SHELAT, R.S.BACHAWAT, V.BHARGAVA
B. M. Lall – Appellant
Versus
Dunlop Rubber Company India LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, D.N.GUPTA, DEVAPRASAD CHAUDHURY, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.K.Gambhir, SARJU PRASAD, SUKUMAR GHOSH

Judgement Key Points

What is the test to determine whether an occupation is a tenancy or a license? What are the terms and effects of the standard form license agreement between the company and its officer? What is the Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding the occupancy of the flats in King’s Court as licensees rather than tenants?

Key Points: - The occupation is analyzed under a construction of the agreement considering terms, object, and circumstances (Errington v Errington; Associated Hotels) (!) - The standard form agreement states the occupation is a license, creates no interest in land, and ceases with employment or transfer; it includes license fees and no landlord-tenant relationship (!) (!) (!) - The High Court and Supreme Court held the occupancies were licenses to the officers for the company’s convenience and staff, not tenancies; the appeals were dismissed (!) (!) (!)

What is the test to determine whether an occupation is a tenancy or a license?

What are the terms and effects of the standard form license agreement between the company and its officer?

What is the Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding the occupancy of the flats in King’s Court as licensees rather than tenants?


Judgement

BACHAWAT, J.:- The respondents are limited companies having their head offices in Calcutta. On May 15, 1953, the two Companies jointly purchased the premises known as King s Court at No. 46-B Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, for the purpose of providing residential accommodation for their staff. They instituted a suit against one B. M. Lall, since deceased, predecessor of the appellants in C. A. No. 2253/66 for recovery of possession of flat No. 8 in the aforesaid premises in his occupation as a tenant, and another suit against the appellant in C. A. No. 2254/66 for recovery of possession of flat No. 9 in his occupation as a tenant, on the ground that they reasonably required the flats for the occupation of their staff. By Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (West Bengal Act XII of 1956), the tenants are protected from eviction except on one or more of the grounds specified in the sub-section. The grounds mentioned in clause (f) of S. 19 (1) are :-

"Where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord either for purposes of building or re-building or for making thereto substantial additions or alterations or for his own occupation if he is the o




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top