SHRI VENCESLAO GONSALVES (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI GABRIEL GONSALVES, A ESTRELA HOTEL, OFF HIGHWAY NH-17, SANTA CRUZ, ILHAS, GOA, Vs. THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PANAJI, GOA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of dismissal of the passed against them by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal. One of the grounds of eviction alleged by respondent nos. 3 and 4, the landlords, in their eviction proceedings, which is the only ground surviving today, is of sub -letting of the premises by appellant nos. 1 and 2 to appellate no. 3. The ground was sought to be defended by the appellants contending that appellant nos. 1 and 2 had by executing Deed of Re -constitution of Partnership dated 24th April, 1995 inducted appellant no. 3 as a partner in their partnership business of M/s. La Vista Lodge carried from the demised premises and hence there was no sub -letting. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence before him specifically found that the alleged agreement of partnership is sham and bogus and it was created only to take up a false defence. For arriving at this finding, the Rent Controller amongst several other circumstances noted unequivocal admission by appellant no. 3 in his cross -examination which reads as follows: -

(2.) SHRI A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Rent Controller erred in not allowing the appellants to produce the deed of reconstitution of partnership dated 24th April, 1995. According to him, failure on the part of the Rent Controller to exhibit the deed has caused great prejudice to the appellants inasmuch as they were precluded from relying on the terms of the deed to show that appellant no. 3 was admitted as partner of the firm and the terms of the reconstitution of the firm. In the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the evidence led on behalf of the appellants was of appellant no. 2 and appellant no. 3. The Rent Controller rejected the evidence of appellant no. 2 because he did not make himself available for cross -examination by respondent nos. 3 and 4. The evidence of appellant no. 3 alone was considered. The agreement of reconstitution of the partnership was sought to be produced through appellant no. 3. The Rent Controller refused to exhibit the document on the ground that the same was not registered. Shri Diniz submits that the Rent Controller could not have refused to reject the document on such ground. After considering the record, we are of the opinion that non -production of this document can be of no consequence in view of the extensive evidence on record which shows that appellant no. 3 was in fact not concerned with the partnership business and also that he was put in exclusive possession of the demised premises. The evidence on this aspect has been considered in detail by the Courts below as well as by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstance, we find no merit in this submission advanced by Shri Diniz.