SRIPATHI SRINIVAS OKADE Vs. M/S PREMIER TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the landlords and is directed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Dharvad, dated 12.11.1982 made in C.R.P. No. 82 of 1981, on his file. The petition before the District Judge was filed by the tenant M/s Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electrical, Lamington Road, Hubli, having suffered an order of eviction by the Munsiff in H.R.C. No. 97 of 1977, on the file of the Munsiff, Hubli. That eviction petition was filed by the landlords in the Court of the Munsiff under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, seeking eviction of the tenants from a portion of the premises occupied by them, on the ground that it was required for use of the landlords themselves as they needed additional space for running a restaurant (boarding) to facilitate their lodgers who are housed in the remaining portion of the composite building. They also urged that the respondent-tenant - Premier Traders had sub-let the premises to Popular Engineering Works and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted as they had not obtained permission of the landlords in writing.

(2.) THE petition was resisted by the tenant-Premier Traders on the grounds (1) that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties as not only Premier Trader but also Premier Traders Electricals were tenants together in accordance with the lease deed in that behalf, (2) that the landlords had adequate space in the underground cellar where they could locate their boarding section and, therefore, the need was not genuine or bonafide; in any event, they were already running a restaurant in another premises built by them a little away from the shop premises and (3) there was no sub-letting as one Mirajankar, the proprietors of M/s. Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electricals, was also proprietor and owner of Popular Engineering Machinery Company.

(3.) THE oral evidence in the case supports that conclusion. It is not disputed that Premier Traders was a partnership firm under the Partnership Act and was a tenant even prior to the coming into existence of the Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electricals. When Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electricals was constituted in or about 1969, the new lease also came into existence. However, the Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electricals was dissolved as evidenced by Exhibit D-2 somewhere in 1972. The terms of the dissolution deed were such that one of the Partners Mirajankar, who was the sole proprietor, was left with all liabilities and assets transferred for a consideration received from him by the remaining partners. He continued to carry on the business of Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electricals in the same premises which was leased to Premier Traders and Premier Traders Electricals. Later on, for the reason he gave in his evidence as DW 4, he also carried on the business of another firm of which he was a partner in the name and style 'Popular Engineering Machinery Company' on account of some agency problems he had. Having regard to these undisputed facts and the fact that the tenants were inducted by a lease deed executed by the leassor in favour of two firms, he held that though Mirajankar was a tenant carrying on his business also in the name and style 'Popular Engineering Machinery Company', it did not amount to sub-letting. He, in that circumstance set aside the findings of the Munsif in regard to sub-letting and reversed the order of eviction passed by the Munsiff in that behalf.