SAKUNTHALA AMMAL Vs. INDIRA DYE WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the petitioner. She filed the petition for eviction under section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 on the ground without the written consent of the landlady, the tenant has transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the building.

(2.) The facts as seen from the records may now be stated. The demised premises was originally let out to one Varada-ramanujulu Reddi some time in 1940 for the express purpose of carrying on the tenant"s business which he was carrying on in the name and style of "Indira Dye Works". At the time when the tenancy was created, Indira Dye Works was a proprietory concern of the said Varada-murthy. The first respondent in C.R.P.No. 4225 of 1983 is the wife, the second respondent, the daughter and the third and fourth respondents are the sons of the said Varadaramanujulu.

(3.) Some time in 1957, the tenant took in one of his sons, the third respondent in the eviction petition, as a partner in the business and the partnership continued to carry on the business in the same name and style of ‘Indira Dye Works". Later in 1971, another son, the fourth respondent in the petition, was also taken into the partnership business. Immediately thereafter Varadaramanujulu retired from the partnership and the two sons, namely the third and the fourth respondents, continued the business. In the year 1974, there was again a reconstitution of the firm. The father joined the firm and the third respondent retired from the firm. In 1976, Varadaramanujulu retired again from the partnership and the fourth respondent continued the business as his sole proprietory concern. Varadaramanujulu died in 1979 and thereafter this petition was filed in October, 1981 claiming that Varadaramanujulu had sub-let the premises to the fourth respondent and that, therefore, she is entitled to an order for eviction.