DHARAM PAL Vs. M/S AMOLAK RAM ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned lower appellate Court has accepted the plea raised by the respondents that the shop in dispute has been sublet by the tenant. The premises in dispute were acquired as tenant by one Dharam Pal. It has been found as a fact that his wife Smt. Promila Seth had given the address of these premises as the business office of another concern. Dharam Pal petitioner, when entered the witness box, was specifically questioned whether he knew who are the other partners in the business concern which according to him, had been floated by his wife, but he failed to give their respective names. He was also questioned about a telephone and he gave evasive replies and said that he did not know whether this telephone belonged to the other concern or not. On these facts, the learned appellate authority has found that the petitioner who was originally a tenant had sublet the premises in dispute. The view taken by it appears to be unexceptionable.

(2.) Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Smt. Krishanwanti v/s. Hans Raj, 1975 R.C.J. 164, for the proposition that where a tenant allows one member of his family to use the premises for his or her business, then this user cannot be regarded as an act of sub -letting. I might, however, observe that these observations were made by the Supreme Court on somewhat different facts. If the wife of the tenant -petitioner bad been carrying on soma business activity exclusively on her own behalf, then probably the observations made by the Supreme Court would have stood in the way of the respondents. Herein, the wife of the petitioner has formed an absolutely new concern inasmuch as she has taken some different partners in her business and even if the wife had the implied right of using the premises in dispute her partner certainly did not enjoy any such right, nor could the user by them be regarded as something other than sub -letting.