In Brief
A landlord appealed against the High Court's decision that a tenant had not sub-let a Delhi shop to his son-in-law under a partnership deed. The Supreme Court held that the tenant violated Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by allowing exclusive occupation without the landlord's written consent. Despite the parties' claim of a genuine partnership, the evidence showed no account-keeping, profit-sharing, or joint management—hallmarks of a real partnership. The Court found this was subletting disguised as partnership. It rejected the argument that being close relatives negated subletting. The tenant was ordered to vacate by 31 October 2017, thereafter paying enhanced rent of ₹10,000 monthly."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.