SAIFUDDIN HUSSINBHAY SIAMWALA Vs. BURMA CYCLE TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the present suit for eviction under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the "act", was barred by virtue of the provisions of S. 69 (3) of the Indian Partnership Act owing to the non-registration of the firm of which the four appellants are the partners.

(2.) The appellants purchased a property bearing No. 164 Broadway, Madras. The sale deed was executed in favour of the first and second appellants who are brothers and the third and fourth appellants who are their sisters. They filed an application before the Rent Controller at Madras under S. 10 of the Act against the respondent and another on the ground that the premises were required bona fide for their own use, occupation and business and that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the premises. The application for eviction was filed by all the four appellants who were stated to be carrying on business under the name and style of Saleh Bros. The tenant filed a written statement raising various pleas but it was no where alleged or stated that any contract of tenancy had been entered into by the partnership of which the four appellants were the partners.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller the only issues raised were: whether the landlords bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation and whether there had been any sub-letting by the tenant. The Rent Controller found against the appellants on the question of sub-letting but upheld their claim of bona fide requirement for their own use and occupation. An appeal was taken to the court of Small Causes, Madras under S. 23 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal an admission appears to have been made on behalf of the appellants in some miscellaneous petition that they were carrying on business in partnership. Certain other points also arose and the Chief Judge, Small Causes court, framed some additional issues on which he called for the findings of the Rent Controller. After theremand it was held by him that the application for eviction 'was not maintainable because the premises were actually required for the purpose of the firm in which only two of the appellants were partners.