CASES- MODULE AGNOSTIC Flashcards
SAMIR KUMAR CHATTERJEE V HIRENDRANATH GHOSH
The plaintiff, Chatterjee, rented out a house to a tenant who later sold the property to that tenant. Subsequently, this tenant allowed another individual to occupy a room, effectively granting them exclusive possession. When the original tenant sought to evict this new occupant, they claimed that the arrangement constituted a mere license and not a lease, asserting that they could revoke it.
There is nothing to show that the plaintiff retained legal possession of the same in the sense of allowing the defendant to occupy it only as a licensee or an invitee for a period of four months.
In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the defendant was living with his family in the suit premises even long before his induction as licensee. This can only be done not as a licensee, but in the capacity other than that as a licensee.
The court, thus, held that a sub-tenancy or sublease had been created by the plaintiff. The fact that no rent receipt was issued in favor of the defendant was due to the fact that the plaintiff was not empowered legally to create a
sub-tenancy. This was an arrangement to avoid getting the legality of authority to the relationship.
