DWARKADASS Vs. NARAYAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned decree, the learned lower Appellate Court has decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of subletting, finding that the tenant defendant No. 1 Dwarka Das has sublet the premises (shop) to Khataumal. Regarding partnership it has been found, that the shop was sublet to Khataumal, as it is not shown that thereafter it reverted back to the original tenant, and thereafter partnership was entered into. Be that as it may. The appeal was filed challenging this finding, and contending, that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there has been any subletting.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relying upon a judgment of this Court in Mohd. Kasam vs. Ghasi Lal reported in 2003 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1477 = (RLW 2004 (1) Raj. 60) submitted that the judgment in Ramjeevani's case does not hold good, as Ramjeevani's case does not consider the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Tara Chand vs. Ram Prasad, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 526, it is no more a good law, and the appeal cannot be entertained, as the other three defendants are subtenant, and therefore, the protection is not available to the legal representatives.