V. JAYARAMAN Vs. VITHAL VISHWANATH KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the tenant, and the respondent the landlord. The landlord filed Civil Suit No. 616 of 2000 against two defendants: the father and the son. They both are chartered accountants by profession. Eventually, on 24.07.2009, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the original defendants 1 and

(2.) , that is father and the son, filed a Civil Appeal No. 496 of 2009, before the District Court, Pune. 2. As the record reveals, pending the appeal, the first appellant-father died. Then, the son continued the litigation. On 23rd February 2018, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the second appellant-son filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) In the above factual backdrop, Shri Shriram S. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the judgment impugned in the Civil Revision Application suffers from three fatal flaws. To elaborate, he has submitted that the actual tenant has been a partnership firm. Of this firm, the landlord has been fully aware because he attested to the deed of partnership between the 1st and 2nd defendants: father and son. In that context, he has drawn my attention to clause 7 of the partnership deed. It records that all the assets of the business were transferred to the partnership firm.