VARGHESE PAUL Vs. KORATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this Revision Petition under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 challenging the order of eviction passed under clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 i.e., the ground of sub lease. The respondent landlord had sought for eviction under sub-section (3) of Section 11 also. But eviction on that ground was refused by the Rent Control Court and also by the appellate authority. Therefore in this revision we are concerned only with the correctness of the order of eviction concurrently passed under cl.(i) of sub-section (4) of Section 11.

(2.) We heard the submissions of Sri B. Premnath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri V.K. Isaac learned counsel for the respondent. We have gone through the records which are available. Sri. Premnath would draw our attention at the very outset to the finding of the Rent Control Court in the context of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11. He points out that it is clearly found by the Rent Control Court that the revision petitioner/tenant is depending mainly on the income which he derives from the business carried on by him in the petition schedule building for his livelihood. He submitted that the said finding has not been set aside by the Rent Control Appellate Authority According to him, in the teeth of that finding the present finding of the authorities that the premises has been sublet by the revision petitioner to the second respondent in the R.C.P. is inherently and absolutely incorrect. He also submitted that oral partnerships are not tabooed in law. In as much as the Rent Control Petition was instituted not by the revision petitioner, Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act which insists on the registration of partnership for the purpose of institution of cases, will not apply. Sri V.K. Isaac, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that Rent Control Appellate Authority has clearly expressed disagreement with the findings of the Rent Control Court that the revision petitioner is depending mainly on the income derived from the petition schedule building. The omission to vacate the finding entered by the Rent Control Court under the second proviso to Section 11(3) was due to inadvertence of the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, at any rate, the above finding can relate only to the rental income derived by the revision petitioner from the building viz. the rent received by him from the alleged sub lessee.

(3.) We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar in the light of the evidence which was available before the Rent Control Court. The building in question was let out to the revision petitioner for conducting business in wooden furniture and wooden curios. The said business is admittedly not being carried on either now or at the time when Ext.A2 statutory intimation notice under Section 11(4)(i) was issued to the tenant. The premises are admittedly used now and at the time of Ext.A2 for the conduct of a telephone booth. Exs.X 1 to X6 documents produced on summons at the instance of the landlord will show that on the basis of an application submitted by the alleged sub lessee, he has been granted licence for conduct of telephone booth by the department of Telephones. Significantly it is stated by the alleged sub lessee in the application that he was permitted by the revision petitioner tenant to occupy the building and to conduct a telephone booth. These documents thus clearly show that the alleged sub lessee was inducted into the petition schedule building by the revision petitioner/tenant and not by the landlord. The defence which was raised by the revision petitioner in answer to the allegation of sub lease was that the alleged sub lessee is his partner on the strength of an oral partnership. It may be true that there is no taboo for oral partnership in law. Even if it is accepted that Section 69 will not apply in this case, the question is whether the oral partnership set up by the revision petitioner has been established. We do not find even a scintilla of evidence to support the case of oral partnership raised by the revision petitioner through his statement of objections filed in the R.C.P.