MD KHALIL RAHAMAN Vs. BHAGABATI CHARAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent was a tenant at 5, J. C. Bose Road, P. S. Golabari. According to the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court on 27th Aug. 1959, he and the defendant-appellant entered into a partnership agreement. The plaintiff was given 2 annas share of the fish business which was to be carried on under the name and style of M/s. M. K. Rahaman & Company in a portion of the plaintiff's rented room at 5, J. C. Bose Road. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the said partnership agreement was acted upon and from 11th Sept. 1959 the defendant had carried on fish business in the said room. In May, 1960 the defendant obtained a direct tenancy of the room in question from the landlord. The defendant did not pay any money to the plaintiff for his share of the profit of the said partnership business.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction brought a suit to restrain the defendant and his men from entering into the shop-room at 5, J. C. Bose Road and for determination of the sum due to him on account of 2 annas share in the profit of the said business, M/s. M. K. Rahaman & Company. Both the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court disbelieved the case of the defendant that the said arrangement between the two parties amounted to sub-letting and that there was really no partnership agreement between them. The appellant has not challenged before me the concurrent finding that the defendant No. 1 and other defendants had entered into a partnership agreement.

(3.) The learned Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah has decreed the suit in the preliminary form ordering the defendant to render accounts to the plaintiff of the business, M/s. M. K. Rahaman & Company from 1st Dec. 1959 to 15th Dec. 1959. On 31st Dec. 1959 the plaintiff had surrendered his tenancy to the landlord from May, 1960 the defendant became a direct tenant. According to the learned Munsif the partnership business was closed from the above date on which the plaintiff had vacated the premises. The learned Munsif declared that the plaintiff had 2 annas share of the profits, in default of rendition of accounts by the defendant a pleader Commissioner was to be appointed to determine the same. Both the plaintiff and the defendant had vacated the premises. The learned Munsif declared that the plaintiff had 2 annas share of the profits. In default of rendition of accounts by the defendant a pleader Commissioner was to be appointed to determine the same. Both the plaintiff and the defendant had preferred appeals before the Lower Appellate Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah dismissed the appeal of the defendant. He allowed the appeal in part of the plaintiff that he found that the partnership in question was never dissolved and the same was still continuing. He modified the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Howrah by ordering that the defendant shall render accounts to the plaintiff of the business from llth September, 1959 to 15th May, 1960, the date of the institution of the suit in respect of his 2 annas share of the profits.