NARIMAN ASPANDIAR IRANI Vs. ADI MERWAN IRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question which arises in this suit is this:---Where two partners together hold the premises of the firm as tenants, does the relinquishment of his interest in the tenancy by one partner in favour of the other, constitute, assignment or the transfer of his interest in the tenancy, which is forbidden by section 15 (1) of the Bombay, Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act ? the suit instituted by Dr. Nariman Irani, the partner of the Defendant Dr. Adi Merwan Irani in the business known as "dr. Iranis Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home, at 7, Jer Mansion, 1st Floor, 70-B, Gowalia Tank Road, Bombay-26", is mainly for a declaration that two writings executed by him on 13th October, 1976, purporting to "gift" his share in the partnership in favour of the Defendant are not valid and that the partnership firm continues to exist as it did, before the execution of the two writings.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case is as under :---

(3.) NOTHING happened for a considerable time. According to the plaintiff, on 21st November 1976 he and the defendant met in the Nursing Home. The plaintiff explained to the defendant that the harassment and continuous demand of money by the latter disgusted him and, therefore, he wrote the letter and declaration in a huff without intending that they be carried out. The defendant accepted this position. Both of them decided that the letter and the declaration dated 13th October, 1976, should be treated as non-extant and they continued to be the partners as before. But the plaintiff was surprised to receive a letter dated 27th December, 1976, written by the Defendant (Exh. `d Page 5), apparently on legal advice. In this letter, he thanked the plaintiff for the gift he had made and recorded his acceptance. It is at this stage that the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that because of what he wrote in disgust and huff, he was about to lose his property. By his letter dated 19th January, 1977 (Exh. `d page 7), he repudiated the fact that he had gifted his partnership share. He recalled that i. e. Defendant knew fully well the circumstances under which he wrote the letter dated 13th October 1976, and that it was agreed that the declaration was not to be acted upon the stood cancelled. The defendant, by his reply dated 16th February, 1977 (Exh. `d page 9) denied that there was such agreement not to act upon the letter and the declaration. Thereafter, correspondence followed to which reference is unnecessary. The suit was instituted on 14th May, 1977. The Plaintiffs case is :---