DATTARAM SITARAM SATPUTE Vs. BHUPAL SITARAM SATPUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution has taken exception to the order dated 13th of Feb. 1984 passed by the learned Assistant Judge of Sangli in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 102 of 1983. Some facts ought to be stated before appreciating the grievance made by the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent are brothers, the petitioner being the elder of the two. They were carrying on the business of selling shoes under the name and style of Raj & Company in a building known as Biniwale Building at Miraj. Sometime in the year 1982 the building was to be demolished for road-widening scheme and an agreement between the landlord and the respondent was entered into where-under the landlord took possession of the premises occupied by the shop along with other premises and where-under he also agreed to give certain premises to the respondent on rent after the building was reconstructed. The building was reconstructed and the respondent took possession of the premises pursuant to that agreement dated 8th of June 1982.

(3.) Thereafter the respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 248 of 1983, for an injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing his possession of the suit premises. It was the contention of the respondent that pursuant to the agreement dated 8th of June 1982 it is he alone who has taken the suit premises on lease and the petitioner, though he might have been a partner in the erstwhile partnership business, had no concern at ail with the suit premises. The respondent filed an application for interim injunction pending the final hearing and disposal of the suit. Ad-interim injunction was granted on this application on 19th of May 1983. Ultimately the learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 30th of June 1983 vacated the ad-interim injunction and dismissed the application. While doing so the learned trial Judge held that the agreement dated 8th of June 1982 was prima facie an agreement between the landlord and the erstwhile partnership. If the respondent had gone in possession of the suit premises ; pursuant to that agreement it must be presumed that he had gone in such possession as a partner of the partnership firm.