GHULAM HUSSALN DLED Vs. D RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st Petitioner is the tenant in a non-residential premises. The landlord has filed an eviction petition on the grounds of sub-letting and bona fide requirement. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on both the grounds and the Appellate Court., allowed the appeal on both the grounds. The allegation of sub-letting was that the petitioner No.1 has taken another person i.e. 2nd petitioner as a partner, and carrying on partnership business in the demised premises, that he is not physically present in the premises throughout the year and that he is not taking any active part in the business. The 2nd ground namely personal requirement is that the respondent landlord is doing the present business in a rented premises along with another partner, that he has no other premises and that he desires to do business in sweets in the suit premises.

(2.) uring the pendency of the CRP, the 1st petitioner-tenant died on 11-7-1993 and his son has been brought on record as L.R.

(3.) Mr. Dilip Kumar Shiradkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that taking another person as partner and carrying on partnership business in the suit premises does not amount to sub-letting and that the rents were paid in the name of the tenant and no permission is required from the landlord to take another person as a partner. He cited two decisions in Apparao vs. Hanumayamma and Nagender vs. Muralidhar wherein it was held that taking a partner and doing business in the name of partnership in the rented premises does not amount to sub-letting. These two decisions fully support the case of the petitioners.