(1.) The first question for consideration in this case is whether the appellant. Dr. Chiranji Lal, assigned, sublet or parted with possession of his tenancy right in 14-C Connaught Place in favour of the partnership consisting of himself and the respondent, Dwarka Nath Mattu by virtue of clauses 14, 15 and 16 of the partnership deed executed by them on the 20th January, 1956. The question was answered in the affirmative by both the learned lower courts, who have thereupon passed a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent. Hence this second appeal by the appellant.
(2.) The relevant clauses of the partnership deed run as follows :-
(3.) In construing the above clauses of the agreement of partnership, we must be guided by the language used by the parties. It is clear that the parties were aware of the provision of proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952). When they entered into the partnership agreement they made conscious effort to ensure that the agreement should not amount to an assignment, subletting or parting with possession of the premises by the tenant in favour of the partnership, inasmuch, as the landlord of the appellant would thereby get a cause of action to evict the appellant-tenant from the premises. There was nothing wrong with such intention. The parties were free to enter into a genuine agreement which would not come within the mischief of proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act of 1952. If, on the other hand, the transaction amounted to an assignment, sub-letting or parting with possession on the wording of the agreement itself, then the parties could not prevent the landlord from proving that he was entitled to evict the tenant. But the construction of the agreement must not be influenced by any consideration that the transaction should or should not come into the mischief of proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act of 1952.