CHHOTALAL MAGANLAL BADRANIWALA Vs. MAYUR SILK MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first question that falls for consideration is whether this sort of arrangement found to have been made and arrived at by the two groups of erstwhile partners can amount to an act of sub-letting or assignment or transfer or unlawful licensing out of the rented property.. The clauses that are pressed into service are (e) and (ee) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the Bombay Rent Act which are quoted below for ready reference:

(2.) We would like to translate some important clauses as faithfully as possible from the deed of dissolution Ex. 62.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the landlords however urged that this unequivocal division of the rented property the taking over of the business name the telephone the debts and liabilities by the partners of the first group the exclusive possession of the two differently well- demarcated portions and the dissolution of every assets except tenancy a rights event to establish that there was sub-letting. (We put a pertinent question to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs as to who sub-let whom and there could not be any direct and pertinent reply to the query. The difficulties in the way of plaintiffs are very obvious because as far as the plaintiffs were concerned there was unity of interest amongst the four partners who for the sake of convenience arrived at some mutual arrangement for their individual benefits. In other words it was a convenient mode of enjoyment of the rented property by the joint tenants or coenants). This arrangement arrived at by the co-tenants by itself did not work any detriment to the interests of the landlords. For all practical purposes all the four tenants who were the tenants in. their individual capacity continued to remain jointly liable. We have got before us the position of law laid in crystal clear language by the Supreme Court itself in the case of Badri Narain Jha & Others v. Rameshwar Dial Singh & Others A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 186. In very clear terms the Supreme Court has there observed as follows: