Summary
The Supreme Court restored the decree directing delivery of a Chandigarh booth to its allottee. The occupant failed to prove his asserted tenancy; the admitted partnership deed and absence of evidence of rent contradicted it. The Chief Administrator’s determination that he occupied as the allottee’s employee was binding under the allotment terms and could not be ignored. Immediate restoration of possession was directed, leaving damages and mesne profits for appropriate proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the occupant established tenancy despite the partnership deed and absence of rent evidence.
- What effect the Chief Administrator’s determination had under the allotment conditions.
Held
- A tenancy may be oral, but intention and surrounding evidence must establish it. Here neither rent records nor receipts supported the assertion, and the tenancy finding rested on conjecture. (¶ 16-20)
- The admitted partnership deed could not be discarded merely by calling it sham. Clause 12 made the Chief Administrator’s determination on subletting binding; his finding that the occupant was an employee could not be ignored. (¶ 20-21)
- The first appellate decree was restored and the Estate Officer directed to ensure immediate possession for the allottee. Recovery of damages and mesne profits was left to appropriate proceedings. (¶ 22-23)
Result
Appeals allowed with costs; first appellate judgment restored, immediate delivery of possession directed and separate damages proceedings left open.