SARASWATI DEVI Vs. L GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has been placed before us as it was referred to a Bench of two Judges by Dua C.J. (as his Lordship then was) by his order dated July 29, 1969. According to the learned Chief Justice two substantial questions of law arise in this appeal, namely, (1) "the evidence has not been properly read or even adverted to by the learned Tribunal and also by the learned Rent Controller" and (2) "what is the legal effect of a partnership firm being a tenant (assuming without holding in the present case, that a firm was a tenant) on a complete change or a substantial change amongst its members after some time in the lease which is originally taken by that firm".

(2.) According to the appellant the premises in dispute comprising the ground floor of house No. 4192, Gali Daroga Kanhaya Lal Jogiwara, Delhi were let to the respondent Gian Chand who had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the said premises to Messrs Tirath Ram Nand Lal since February, 1960. The defence of the respondent was that he had not taken the premises on rent for himself in his individual capacity and that it was the firm Messrs Tirath Ram Gian Chand through himself as a partner, who had taken the premises on rent. It was further pleaded that he, Gian Chand, had retired from the said firm in 1957 and the application against himself was incompetent and misconceived. It was further averred that the tenancy of the firm Tirath Ram Gian Chand would not be affected if its partners had changed the name of their business to Messrs Tirath Ram Nand Lal. In spite of this defence neither Messrs Tirath Ram Gian Chand nor Messrs Tirath Ram Nand Lal were sought to be impleaded as parties to the petition.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi came to the conclusion that the premises must have been taken for the use of the partnership and that the respondent had not taken the premises on rent in his personal capacity. In appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal confirmed these finding and dismissed the appeal.