MST. JAL KAUR Vs. PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlady petitioner has challenged the order of the Rent Controller and also that of the Appellate Authority to the effect that the respondent-tenant did not sub-let the premises in question and in fact he entered into a partnership with respondents Nos. 2 and 4 in the ejectment petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. Both the authorities below, after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence came to the conclusion that respondent Pritam Singh, who is originally rented out the premises, had entered into a partnership with Bhopinder Nath and Gurdev Mohan vide partnership deed dated 3-10-1970 Exhibit R. 3. Subsequent to the execution of the partnership deed, an account was opened in the Bank and the copy of the Bank account is Exhibit R.2. The said account started operating on 29-4-1971 and continued to be operated till 12-6-1972 when the partnership came to an end. Shri Puri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while making reference to the documents marked A, B and C contends that the said documents would show that the partnership did not come into existence after the partnership deed was executed on 3-10-1970, but licence in the name of the partnership firm Guru Nanak Pharmacy was issued in July, 1970 before the execution of the partnership deed. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. Firstly the documents marks A, B and C have not been got proved on the record. Secondly, the reading of these documents would only show that Bhupinder Nath one of the partners, had applied for getting the licence for opening a drug shop in the name of 'Kulwant Rai and Company' to start with. Subsequently, when the partners agreed to work as a partnership firm, an application was made on 28.9.1970 that the name of the licence should be changed to the name of partnership i. e., Guru Nanak Pharmacy. On 3rd October, 1970, the partnership deed was executed. In any case both the courts below have appreciated documentary as well as oral evidence and recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the partnership was genuine. It is not open to me to reappraise the evidence at this stage and to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the courts below, which is not possible in view of the overwhelming documentary evidence.

(2.) Shri Puri then contends that clause 12 of the partnership deed shows that it is a case of sub-letting. This contention is also without any merit. Under this clause, the partnership has to pay a sum of Rs. 40/- as rent to Pritam Singh, one of the partners, who has further to pay this amount to the landlady as rent of the premises. This clause only reflects a working arrangement between the partners as to how the rent shall be paid to the landlady and nowhere goes to show that Pritam Singh sub-letted the premises.

(3.) The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not mentioned in the partnership deed as to who will carry on the business and, therefore, the partnership deed does not satisfy the ingredients of section 4 of the Partnership Act. The learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in Kastur Chand v. Gujjar Mal and others, 1977 2 RentLR 470. This contention is also without any merit. The opening sentence of the partnership deed would show that all the partners are supposed to carry on this business. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help as the said case was decided on its own facts :-