VAISAKUMAR Vs. SUPREME FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Would the continuance of the landlord as a partner of the sublessee firm amount to a positive act of consent to sublease the premises is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Landlords are the revision petitioners. Eviction was sought for under S.11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition on all the grounds. Landlords took up the matter in appeal. Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(3.) First respondent, stated to be a partnership firm by name "Supreme Financiers", was inducted into the schedule building as per Ext.A1 rent deed dated 1.2.1983. Subsequently adjacent building was also built and handed over to the first respondent. The wall between the two rooms was demolished and the two rooms were being kept in the possession of the first respondent. Monthly rent of the building was Rs.500/-. Later upstair portion was constructed and the first respondent was inducted into the upstair portion also. First petitioner-landlord was working abroad. He wanted to come back to the native place and start a business in Hardware and paints. Landlord stated that he has no other suitable building of his own for starting the said business. Further landlord noticed that without his knowledge and consent first respondent has sublet the ground floor of the building to the second respondent, a partnership firm, "Supreme Traders". Landlord came to know of the sublease only in October 1989. Consequently he issued a lawyer notice dated 7.7.1980 for terminating the tenancy with effect from 19.7.1990 and also wanted the premises to be surrendered for conducting a business of his own.