IMPORTANT POINT
Subletting does not require proof of monetary consideration; the key factor is whether the tenant has parted with exclusive possession without the landlord's consent.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8th August, 2003 passed by learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Appeal no. 12 of 2003, present Second Appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment and decree the court below affirmed the decree dated 19th August, 2002 passed by learned Judge, 6th Bench Presidency Small Causes Court Calcutta in Ejectment suit no. 1042 of 2000.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed aforesaid Ejectment suit no. 1042 of 2000 against defendant/Appellant herein for recovery of khas possession. The defendant is a registered partnership firm and a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises. Originally a tenancy agreement was entered in between the plaintiff/landlord and Gupta Auto Agency of which Omprakash Gupta was the sole proprietor. Thereafter, it has been converted into a partnership firm by dint of partnership deed dated 31st August, 1984 and the name of the partners are Omprakash Gupta, Sohan Lal Gupta, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, and Ajay Gupta.

3. In the plaint and the amended plaint it is alleged that the defendant is guilty of acts of waste and damages, detrimental to the suit premises and the defendant has made addition and alteration in the suit premises without prior consent of the plaintiffs and thereby violated clauses (m) (o) (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further alleged that the defendant illegally transfer/assigned and or sublet the suit premises to

(i) M/s Gupta Auto Agency

(ii) M/s Ashoke Plastics (pvt) Ltd.

(iii) M/s Chitralekha Housing Corporation

(iv) M/s Jayantilal Jagdish prasad

(v) M/s Ushakiron Housing Corporation

(vi) M/s Indian Vegetable Products Limited

(vii) M/s Fulford India Limited

(viii) M/s Gupta Auto Agency Pvt.

(ix) M/s pearl Ply Industries Pvt. Ltd.

(x) Plaza Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

4. Further case of the plaintiffs is that tenancy of the defendant has been duly determined by a notice of ejectment dated 18.11.1986 thereby defendant was asked to quit and vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of December 1986 but the defendant failed to vacate the same and as such the suit was filed.

5. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement interalia denying the plaintiffs case of subletting and/or causing damage to the suit premises. In the written statement defendant denied that the companies mentioned in para 4 of the plaint are in possession of the suit premises. On the contrary it is contended that the original tenancy in favour of sole proprietorship firm was converted into a Private Limited Company and the companies mentioned in para 4(ii) of the plaint has common directors and partners with the defendant itself and only some paper work is done in the suit premises with respect to some company. It is further stated in the written statement that the companies mentioned in the para 4(ii) to (viii) are neither in possession of the suit property nor they are occupying any portion of the suit property. In the additional written statement defendant also denied that they had sublet the suit premises to any of the aforesaid companies. Defendant further contended in additional written statement that Gupta Auto Agency which used to be a registered partnership firm was converted into a private limited company with their partners and family members as directors and share holders. The Pearl Poly Industries Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited Company with the partners of the defendant or their family members as its directors and share holders. Similarly the Plaza Plastics Pvt. Ltd. is also a private limited Company with the partners and family members of the defendants. Ashok Plastic Pvt. Ltd. is not there in the suit premises and only table work is done by Plaza Plastics Pvt. Ltd, and Pearl Poly Industries Pvt. Ltd. at the suit premises. It was also stated in the written statement that no consideration is received from or paid by the said companies