CHANDULAL PVT LTD Vs. SUSHEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this revision is the landlady of the premises bearing Door No. 155, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. The petitioner-tenant had obtained a lease of the entire ground floor and a portion of the first floor room the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 200. The landlady filed an eviction petition, under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlady required the premises for her own use as she had obtained an agency to deal in pharmaceutical products. She had also stated that she had entered into a partnership agreement with one A Ranga Rao who is PW-2 in the case, and also a Managing Director of M/s. Akin Laboratories and with her daughter-in-law to deal in pharmaceutical products and, therefore, she wanted accommodation for her personal occupation.

(2.) The plea taken up by the tenant was that it was false to say that the landlady wants the building for her personal occupation to carry on the business, that she is an old lady and cannot transact any business, and that it only a ruse for eviction of the tenant. The Rent Controller held enquiry on the basis of these pleadings and found that the premises was bonafide required by the landlady to carry on the business. He therefore, ordered eviction. The tenant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority under the Act confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller to the effect that the premises was bonafide required by the landlady to start her business and finally passed orders of eviction. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred this revision.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act the landlady has to carry on her own business, and that she cannot carry on the business in partnership with another member especially when according to the partnership deed she is a sleeping partner. The learned Advocate further contended that all the documents produced by the landlady in support of her claim are false and obtained especially for making up a case against the tenant and that the lower authorities were incorrect in finding that the requirement of the premises by the landlady was bonafide. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended very strenuously that having regard to the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Act, if the landlady wants to carry on a business of her own, it would be a different matter as contemplated under that section. But where the landlady is a sleeping partners in a partnership concern, it is necessary to prove that is a business of her own and, therefore, both the authorities were incorrect in ordering eviction of the petitioner. In support of this contention the learned Advocate has cited a decision reported in D.N. Sanghavi v. At. Das, 1974 AIR(SC) 1026 in so far as the contention with regard to the merits of the case are concerned. I, regret I cannot accede to those contentions. In the first place in the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Bangaswamy, 1980 AIR(SC) 1253 the Supreme Court has now restricted the powers of the High Court, sitting in revision under the Act from going over once again into the merits of the case where both the authorities have found concurrently on certain facts I have nevertheless went into the contentions of the learned Advocate fort he petitioner his main contention was that the revision petition was filed on 13th July, 1975 and that the partnership deed with is alleged to have been entered into by the landlady along with PW-2, and her own daughter-in-law, is dated 4th December, 1975, and that the partnership deed was registered in the year 1976. Therefore, submits the learned Advocate that these facts would show that that there was no partnership concern at the time when the eviction petition was filed. The next contention is that X-6 and Exhibit X-6 are the documents which have been got prepared for purpose of strengthening the case. I regret cannot accede to any of these contentions. In the first place, a partnership can come into existence by means of an oral agreement and if for any reason a partnership deed is executed later, it cannot be said that the partnership had come into existence on the date when the partnership deed was executed. It is specially alleged in the petition that she has entered into a partnership agreement with PW-2, and with her daughter-in-law to run business in pharmaceutical products, and if the partnership deed is post dated with the filing of the eviction petition, it cannot be concluded that the ground given by the landlady is false. As stated earlier, both the Courts have found in favour of the landlady and I see no reason to interfere with that conclusion. So far as Exhibits X-4 and X-6 are concerned, I have gone through them and I find that they are the letters written by two different outside firms especially one from a firm at Bombay, the contention of the learned Advocate for the tenant that all these exhibits were got prepared cannot be accepted. Both the Courts have also considered these documents as genuine and I see no reason to interfere with the same. Hence to my mind there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel.