RAJENDRA KAMMATH Vs. ANAND BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners are the landlords of the tenanted premises which was let out to respondents 1 and 2 on 5.3.1972 for a monthly rent of Rs.75/- with a covenant against subletting or transfer of rights to third parties. Rent of the building was paid upto June 1993. Later it was sent by money order dated 19.8.1993 on behalf of "Payyana Traders and Industries". Petitioners came to know that the tenants have transferred their rights to strangers and found third respondent conducting the business in the scheduled premises. Petitioners therefore sent notice dated 23.7.1993 to respondents 1 and 2 requesting them to evict the sub tenant. First respondent replied to the said notice, but no reply was sent by the second respondent.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their objections. They have admitted that the tenanted premises was taken on rent from the father of the first petitioner in the year 1972. Second respondent in the year 1973 withdrew from the partnership leaving the assets and liabilities to the first respondent who continued the business. Partnership was later reconstituted by partnership deed dated 1.5.1973 by inducting one G.S. Kakade in the place of the second respondent. Partnership was again reconstituted on 18.11.1974 inducting one K.D. Jacob in the place of G.S. Kakade. As per Clause.4 of the dissolution deed dated 27.10.1977 all the assets of the firm were assigned to K.D. Jacob. Further it is stated that the landlords used to take rent from K.D. Jacob without any complaint from the year 1974 to 1977 while Jacob was the Managing Partner and from the year 1977 to 1993 when he was the sole partner and hence Jacob was recognised as a tenant.

(3.) Third respondent also entered appearance stating that he is not the lessee or sublessee of the tenanted premises and that he is conducting business at a place 25 metres away from the tenanted premises. First petitioner was examined as PW.1. Petitioners produced Exts.A1 to A6 documents. On the side of the tenants first respondent was examined as RW.1 and third respondent was examined as R.W.2. Exts.B1 to B7 documents were produced. The Rent Control Court after perusing the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 had already transferred possession of the building in the year 1977 to Jacob and thereafter they have no connection with the scheduled premises. Further it is also noted that the same business is being conducted in the scheduled premises and that the petitioners used to issue receipts in the name of Payyana Traders and Industries and subsequently in the year 1993 landlords set up a case that respondents 1 and 2 have sublet the building to third respondent. Further it was noticed that Jacob, though the brother of the third respondent, was also not made party to the Rent Control Petition and therefore the petition is defective. Rent Control Court therefore found that the landlords could not establish the ground under S.11(4)(i) of the Act and the petition was dismissed. Claim under S.11(2)(b) was also not allowed.