SHYAM SUNDER Vs. BRIJ LAL CHAMAN LAL PURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHYAM Sunder and his two brothers Madan Mohan and Manohar Lal were the owners of the premises in dispute which consist of a building used for business purposes in Amritsar City. This building was g ven on rent to firm Brij Lal Chaman it with effect from 1st of February 1957 on a monthly rent of Rs. 97 per mensem. The rent deed was, however, executed on 11th of October 1957 by Brij Lal on behalf of the firm which had two partners Brij Lal and Chaman Lal. Brij Lal died on 16th of June 1961, leaving behind a widow and two sons as his legal representatives. On 12th of October 1961 the partnership firm was dissolved and a deed of dissolution was executed between Chaman Lal and the legal representatives of Brij Lal. Under this document, the rights in the. shop in dispute fell to the share of Chaman Lal who alone carried on his business in this building. Later on Chaman Lal took his brother Madan Lal and the letter's son as partners with him and started his business under the name and style of Madan Lal Chaman Lal. On 15th of April, 1963, Shyam Sunder and his two brothers filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), against the firm Brij Lal Chaman Lal, the widow and two sons of Brij Lal, and Chaman Lal, respondents 1-5, praying for their eviction from the premises in dispute on two grounds, but we are in the present petition concerned with only one of them, namely "that the firm respondent 1 was dissolved by the death of Shri Brij Lal and in any case by voluntary dissolution between Shri Chaman Lal and other respondents Nos. 2-4 about a year ago. The firm respondent No. 1 thus ceased to exist about a year ago. Furthermore, the possession of the building has been parted with and given to Messrs. Madan Lal Chaman Lal since about a year ago. "

(2.) THIS application was resisted by Chaman Lal both in his individual capacity as well as being the proprietor of the dissolved firm Messrs. Brij Lal Chaman Lal. According to him -

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Kent Controller framed only one issue in the case, viz. , "are the applicants entitled to an order of ejectment on the grounds pleaded in para. 5 (ii) of the application?". He held that Brij Lal and Chaman Lal were the joint tenants of the premises in dispute under the applicants and that being so both of them had a right to occupy the entire tenanted premises and they were not tenants in respect of their shares only. One co-tenant could not surrender the tenancy rights so as to bind the other co-tenant. On surrender of his rights by one of the co-tenants, the other had a right either to recognise the surrender or to insist on the performance of the original lease deed. A co-tenant who surrendered his rights in the joint tenancy had no interest left in the tenancy rights after the surrender and the other co-tenant could continue as the sole tenant. A transfer of a right in the lease by a co-lessee in favour of the other lessee would not be a breach of the covenant against assignment without the consent of the landlord. After the dissolution of the firm Brij Lal Chaman Lal, according to the Rent Controller, Chaman Lal became the sole tenant under the applicants. He himself being a partner in the firm Madan Lal Chaman Lat, Chaman Lal could not be said to have parted with possession of the premises in favour of the firm Madan Lal Chaman Lal. There was no provision in the Act which prevented a tenant from taking a third person as a partner in his business. Chaman Lal was a partner of the firm Madan Lal Chaman Lal and since he himself worked in the premises in dispute in that capacity he could not be deemed to have parted with possession of the demised building or assigned his rights in the lease in favour of the firm Madan Lal Chaman Lal. In view of these findings, he dismissed the ejectment application.