Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUGATO MAJUMDAR
A. T. Gooyee Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Nand Lal Rathi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the plaintiff's claims and premises. (Para 4) |
| 3. defendant's contentions and challenges. (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 4. arguments on tenancy vs. license. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. judicial exploration of tenancy vs. license. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. court's observation on expiration of tenancy. (Para 46 , 50) |
| 7. final orders and conclusions. (Para 54) |
JUDGMENT :
Sugato Majumdar, J.
1.CS 258 of 2009 is heard analogously with EOS 1 of 2010 and both the suits are disposed of by this common judgment.
CS 258 of 2009:
2. CS 258 of 2009 was filed by M/s A. T. Gooyee (in short “the partnership firm”) against the Defendant Mr. Nanda Lal Rathi (in short “Mr. Rathi”). The Plaintiff is a partnership firm having its principle place of business at 10A, Hospital Street, Kolkata-700072. The Defendant Mr. Nanda Lal Rathi runs a proprietorship business of the name and style of Raathi Centre at G-4A, Kamalalaya Centre, 156A, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013.
3. Before adverting to rival pleadings one thing must be kept in mind, relevance of which will be discussed later on. CS 258 of 2009 was originally instituted by M/s A.T. Goyee En
The court determined that the agreement labeled as a license was effectively a tenancy based on parties' intention, emphasizing that exclusive possession and rental payments support this interpretati....
The substance of the agreement, the intention of the parties, and the nature of the rights granted are crucial in determining whether an agreement creates a lease or a license.
The intention of the parties, as expressed in contractual language, determines the distinction between a landlord-tenant relationship and that of a licensor-licensee.
The determination of the relationship as licensee or tenant hinges on the parties' intention as reflected in the agreement, not merely on exclusive possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of estoppel against tenants or lessees in possession, as embodied in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which....
A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid if served to one partner, binding the partnership firm, unless contested at the first opportunity.
Tenant's claim of proprietorship firm tenancy instead of individual does not forfeit lease under Section 111(g)(2) TPA, as firm is not separate from proprietor and no adverse title set up.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
