SHANTILAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the not present writ petition is that the Rent Controller, Akola as well as the Resident Deputy Collector (Appellate Authority), Akola have on committed serious error of law in dismissing by the petitioner's application under clause 13 (3) (iii) of the G. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, the 'rent Control Order, 1949') and holding that the respondent No. 2, the tenant, by entering into partnership in firm, Mahalaxmi Medical and General Stores in which the respondent No. 2 claims to be partner, has not sub-let the premises and subjected himself to the mischief under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application on 21-8-1987 under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller, Akola seeking permission to serve quit notice on the tenant/respondent No. 2 for having sub-let the premises to the respondent No. 3. It was alleged by the petitioner in his application that he was owner/landlord of the double-storeyed house bearing 268, Ward No. 24, Malipura Chowk, Akola and the respondent No. 2 herein was tenant of block premises on the ground floor of the said house on monthly rent of Rs. 75. 00. According to the petitioner, the tenancy commences from the 1st day of each month and ends on the last day thereof. The petitioner alleged in his application that the tenant has sub-let the premises in question to the respondent No. 3 herein without his written consent and the business in the disputed premises is run in the name and style of Mahalaxmi Medical and General Stores, Akola.

(3.) A joint Written Statement was filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein before the Rent Controller and the allegations made in the application were denied. It was submitted by them that there was no sub-letting at all. According to them, the respondent No. 2 took the premises on rent in the year 1983 and the entered into partnership with the respondent No. 3 and some other persons for running the business in the name of Mahalaxmi Medical and General Stores in which the respondent No. 2 was partner and, there fore, he never parted with possession of the rented premises and the respondent No. 3 herein was not the sub-tenant. Mere creation of partnership with some other persons by the tenant in which he was partner, did not amount to subletting, according to the respondents 2 and 3 herein and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner was wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed.