GLRDHARILAL Vs. PRAFULLCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from a suit for ejectment and other reliefs. It was resisted by the defendant-appellant. The trial Court passed a decree for ejectment on the ground that the appellant sub-let a portion of the suit accommodation to a firm consisting of himself and another. The first appellate Court dismissed the defendant's appeal.

(2.) THE appellant is a tenant of the respondents 1 and 2. THE accommodation is non-residential. It is not in dispute that with effect from 1 April 1964 a partnership was constituted between Girdharilal (defendant 1) and Chandumal (defendant 5) to carry on business in the name and style of "M/s. Shiv General Stores". THE deed of partnership was executed on 14th April 1964. Its terms so far as they are material for the present) suit, will be presently stated. It is not in dispute that in one portion of the suit accommodation, the appellant continued his sweetmeat shop, while in the other the business of M/s. Shiv General Stores was carried on. THE plaintiffs' contention is that this amounted to sub-letting within the meaning of section 12 (1) (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This contention has been accepted by both the Courts below. On the other hand, the appellant's case is that there was no sub-letting, nor assignment, nor parting with possession within the meaning of the said section. Mere permission was given to the firm to occupy a portion of the suit accommodation but this does not fall within the mischief of section 12 (b) of the Act.

(3.) THE decision in Tansukdas v. Shambai, AIR 1954 Nag 160, is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the tenant gave exclusive possession to the firm in which he was a partner. In the present case, the covenants contained in the partnership deed clearly show that the appellant did not deliver exclusive possession, nor was there any such intention.