NIHALCHAND Vs. NORATMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by respondent Noratmal for possession and arrears of rent of the premises which were admittedly let out to defendant Nihalchand in Ajmer City, under an oral but old tenancy, at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem. THE defendant used to reside in first floor, while he carried on his business in the ground floor. He handed over his business to a partnership firm consisting, besides himself, of Kanhiyalal, Noratmal and Ram Narayan, under partnership agreement Ex. 2 dated April 7, 1959, which was duly registered. It was agreed that the business which the defendant was carrying on earlier in his own name would be run thereafter by the partnership firm in the name of M/s Tarachand Santosh Kumar, in the premises, and that his share would be annas five in the rupee. THE responsibility of carrying on the partnership business in a proper manner was placed on the defendant with the stipulation that he would discharge it in consultation with, and with the consent of, the other three partners. THE details of the partnership property were also settled in the partnership agreement, but it is not necessary to refer to them. THE following two clauses of the agreement are important and may therefore be reproduced

(2.) 19&;g gs fd ftl txg mdr Qez dk dkj[kkuk vhkh yxk gqvk gs og txg Qjhd ua-1 ds uke ls fdjk;s ij gs vksj ekfld fdjk;k eq- 30 :i;s nsrs gsa og fefr psr lqfn 1] 2016 ls mdr Qez ds fdjk;s ij jgsxk vksj mdr Qez gh fdjk;k izfr ekg 30 :i;s vnk djsxha ijurq ikvzujf'ki dh rkjh[k ls iwoz ds fdjk;s dh vnk;xh dh dksbz fteesnkjh mdr Qez dh ugha gksxha mldh vnk;xh dk fteesnkjh vdsyk Qjhd vooy gksxka 20& ;g fd 'kjkdr fqld [kre gksus dh lwjr esa edku ftl esa dkj 'kjkdr gksxk oks Qjhd vooy ds dcts esa jgsxka It may also be mentioned here that it has been stated by Kanhiyalal P. W. 5 one of the partners, that the partners used to pay Rs. 30/- per mensem to the defendant for the use of the ground floor in running of the partnership factory. Thus far, the facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff brought the suit for possession on the allegations, inter alia, that the defendant had sub-let the ground floor, or had otherwise parted with possession thereof, without his consent. The defendant denied that this was so and pleaded that he had merely entered into a partnership with the three persons mentioned above. Thus the main controversy between the parties was whether the defendant had sub-let a portion of the suit premises, or had otherwise parted with the possession thereof, so as to justify his eviction under sec. 13 (l) (e) of the Rajasthan Premises ( Control of Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1950. This was the subject matter of issue No. 2. The learned Munsiff found the issue against the defendant and decreed the suit on October 31, 1961. The defendant preferred an appeal, but it was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge of Ajmer on January 2, 1963 and it is in these circumstances that the defendant has preferred this second appeal.