JAM MAD AS Vs. ZOHRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in the eviction petition are the petitioners in this revision petition. The landlady is the respondent. The landlady filed the present eviction petition in the year 1984 as she was prevented from prosecuting the proceedings in a Civil Court by virtue of the striking down of provisions of Section 32 (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as ultra vires by the Supreme Court.

(2.) The case that is set up by the landlady is that she has let out the suit premises to only Jamunadas, son of Popatlal Parekh and not to any Firm and the premises has been leased out and it is exclusively in occupation of the 2nd respondent in the eviction petition, who is second petitioner herein, contrary to the terms agreed to between the parties. She filed O.S. No. 1600 of 1976 on the file of II Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad only against Jamuna Das and during the pendency of the suit, Smt. Vanita V. Parekh, the 2nd petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. on the ground that herself and Jamunadas are both partners of the firm 'Peruel Toys Agency'. After due contest that petition was dismissed holding that she is not a necessary and proper party and that she has not made out a case that the premises was let out to the firm. That finding has become final. Apart from other grounds this eviction petition has been filed. The learned Rent Controller found that a case of sub-letting was proved by the landlady and, therefore, ordered eviction. On appeal that finding was confirmed. The application for filing additional documents was also rejected.

(3.) It is mainly contended in this revision petition that the concurrent finding of fact that the premises was sub-let is not correct. Ex. P-1 is the rental deed. Clause I of Ex. P-1 reads that the lessee has agreed to take on lease for opening a show room viz., 'Paruel Toys Agency'. Clause 4 specifically prohibits the grant of any sub-lease by the lessee stating "the lessee shall not make any alterations in the above premises except with the permission of the lessor nor shall he sub-let the above premises or deliver the possession thereof to any person other than the lessor'. There is no recital in Ex. P-1 indicating that the premises was taken on lease on behalf of the firm consisting of two partners. On the other hand, it discloses that it was taken only in his individual capacity. When a clear prohibition is made in the agreement about subletting the premises, the question of implied consent or waiver does not arise.