PISHORI LAL Vs. POORAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Puran Chand and others, respondents instituted a suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, against Pishori Lal, appellant, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Their allegations were that they were the allottees of a plot situate in Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. The defendant possessed a saw machine and on 5th December, 1956, he entered into a partnership with the plaintiff and executed a partnership deed Exhibit P.7, to carry on the business of the sawing of wood. Later on, differences arose between them and it was not possible to continue the partnership business, which necessitated the filing of the present suit.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit. He denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and pleaded that there was no partnership between them and, as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs had sublet the property in dispute to him, where he had been carrying on his independent business. According to him, the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant and the partnership-deed had been executed merely to avoid the cancellation of the allotment of the plot made in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) It appears that when the defendant started the business on this plot, the Managing Officer issued a notice to the plaintiffs as to why the allotment of the same in their favour be not cancelled and the defendant be not dispossessed on the ground that the plaintiffs had sublet it to the defendant. In these proceedings both the plaintiffs and the defendant had taken the position that they were partners in the business and that the plaintiffs had not sublet the premises to the defendant. The defendant filed an affidavit, Exhibit P.5, and also made a statement, Exhibit P.3 before the Managing Officer to this effect. By these documents, he admitted in unequivocal terms that he had entered into partnership with the plaintiffs for running the said business on the plot in dispute; that there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties; that he was not paying any rent to the plaintiffs and that the management and control over the plot in question was that of the plaintiffs. The Managing Officer came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not sublet the premises. Their allotment was, therefore, not cancelled and the defendant was allowed to remain in possession of the plot.