In Brief
The appellant allotted a booth under a hire-purchase arrangement entered into a partnership deed with the respondent for cycle repair business. The respondent later claimed to be a tenant paying monthly rent. The trial court found him a tenant despite lack of documentary proof, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, finding no tenancy. The High Court allowed the respondent's appeal. The Supreme Court held the Chief Administrator's finding that the respondent was merely a servant (not tenant) binding under the allotment terms. The Court reversed the High Court, reinstated the First Appellate judgment, and directed possession be restored to the appellant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.