NANDU MAL Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlords' revision application against the dismissal in two Courts so far as ejectment was concerned o a suit against respondent No. 1 Ramji Lal.

(2.) The property in suit consists of two shops, apparently adjacent shops; bearing No. 1371 situated in Bazaar Sita Ram, Delhi. There is no dispute that Ramji Lal respondent took these shops on rent from the applicants on an oral lease at a monthly rental of Rs. 23/14/- and that Ramji Lal took the premises in order to conduct in them a flour-grinding business. Due apparently to rationing the Hour-grinding business did not prosper and on the 9th of February 1949 Ramji Lal entered into a partnership agreement with one Kidar Nath to carry on a business of manufacture of ice-cream on the suit premises. The partnership deed between Ramji Lal and Kidar Nath which was attested as a witness by one of the four plaintiffs, said to be the one who managed their affairs, admittedly was a deed of partnership which provided for the sharing of profits and losses and the common carrying on of the business. On the same day as this partnership agreement was executed between Ramji Lal and Kidar Nath both Ramji Lal and Kidar Nath executed a lease deed in favour of the present applicants. Although it was disputed at one stage that the landlords had not agreed to the premises being used for manufacture of icecream I think there can be no doubt that the landlords were consenting parties to the partnership between Ramji Lal and Kidar Nath and knew perfectly well that this partnership was for the purpose of manufacture of ice-cream and that they accepted Kidar Nath as tenant jointly with Ramji Lal with full knowledge of what use was proposed to be made of the premises.

(3.) The partnership between Kidar Nath and Ramji Lal, however, was short lived. On the 19 of February 1949, that is to say, after ten days only Kidar Nath transferred his rights to Ramji Lal. A note to this effect was made on the lease deed which had been executed in favour of the landlords and which in the suit later was produced by the landlords. On the 25th of February 1949 Ramji Lal and one Babu Lal executed what purported to be a partnership deed. This partnership deed, however, was not attested by any of the plaintiffs and no rent note or other document was executed by R'amji Lal & Babu Lal as had been done by Ramji Lal and Kidar Nath. The present suit was filed on the 20th of June 1949 and was for arrears of rent and for possession. The grounds for possession under Section 9 of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, were stated as follows : 1. That without the consent and authority of the plaintiffs and against the terms of the tenancy the defendant No. 1 has sub-let the shops to defendant No. 2 and has parted with possession of the shops and put defendant No. 2 in possession for illegal gains; 2. That the defendant has made material air terations in the premises and has fixed a heavy ice-cream making machine and two water taps and one Jafri causing damage to the building without the consent and authority of the plaintiffs; and 3. That the defendant has not paid rent and is not ready and willing to pay rent.