BHAG SINGH Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAG Singh landlord has preferred this revision under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act from the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana affirming the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for eviction of his tenant Surjan Singh. Several grounds were raised in the petition for eviction, but as the order of the Rent Controller shows, the only ground pressed related to the allegation of subletting. Apparently, the tenant was alleged to have sublet the building to one Joginder Singh who had installed a few lathe machines in July, 1963. It appears from the Order of the Rent Controller that there was also a previous eviction application which was pending in some other Court, having been presented on 6th. July, 1933, Five or six days after the institution of that proceedings the subletting was effected. At another place, according to the Rent Controller, the subletting had been made long after the institution of the prior proceedings. The landlord had denied that Surjan Singh and Joginder Singh had been carrying on the business in partnership in this building. Surjan Singh appeared in the witness box and deposed that he and Joginder Singh were partners working in this building since 12th July, 1963. and that he had not sublet the building as alleged. Reliance in this connection was placed on the partnership deed Exhibit R. 1 which purports to have been executed on 12th July, 1963. The Rent Controller in a very sketchy order observing that in cross -examination of Surjan Singh, nothing had been brought out throwing doubt on the alleged partnership, rejected the eviction petition. The finding arrived at was that Joginder Singh was not in exclusive possession and control of the building and was working there in partnership with Surjah Singh.

(2.) ON appeal, it was argued before Shri Murari Lal Puri, Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, that the so called partnership was a mere make shift arrangement and a faked affair and in real substance the premises had been sublet to Joginder Singh. The Appellate Authority, however, did not agree with this submission and upheld the finding of the Rent Controller in his order. In the case, the Appellate Authority noticed that Joginder Singh had not been examined in the case and even the attesting witness of the partnership deed had not been produced, but curiously enough, these serious omissions were not considered to be material because as the Appellate Authority puts in the order, Joginder Singh had appeared as a witness for Surjan Singh in proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C., initiated by him against Bhag Singh landlord, some time back, and Exhibit A. 2 dated 16th September, 1933, a certified copy that statement, was produced on the record. This was taken into account and the statement made by Joginder Singh in those proceedings was considered by the Appellate Authorting in coming to the conclusion that Joginder Singh had asserted that he was a partner of Surjan Singh in the existing business. Relying on this statement and on a copy of the partnership -deed even though unproved, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent, Controller.

(3.) NOW the transfer of rights, under the lease to the partnership consisting of Joginder Singh and Surjan Singh is, in my opinion, clearly hit by section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of the Nagpur High Court in Tansukhdas v. Shambhai, A.I.R. 1954 Nag. 160, where it has been observed that if in the first instance 'A' alone was the tenant of the premises and he allowed other persons to enter into partnership along with himself to carry on business in those premises, the partnership which 'A' entered into along with the third parties would be a personality in law distinct from that of 'A' himself and 'A' would bring himself within the purview of the law prohibiting subletting without the permission of the landlord, and liable to be ejected on the ground of unauthorised subletting.