In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that "the services in lieu of the right of…

In Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty (AIR 1987 SC 2055 / 2058), the Supreme Court held that to establish sub-tenancy under Rent Control legislation, two essential ingredients must be proved: first, that the alleged sub-tenant was in exclusive possession of part or whole of the premises, and second, that such possession was parted with in exchange for payment of rent. The Court ruled that even though services may constitute consideration for a lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, services rendered in lieu of the right of occupation cannot be treated as receipt of rent under the Rent Control Act so as to create a sub-tenancy.