TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved consequent thereupon. On 29.6.1991, another deed of partnership was signed between respondent No.1, the widow of late Vijay Gautam acting for herself and as guardian of respondent No.2, the minor son of Vijay Gautam, on the one hand and Harbhajan Singh, respondent No.3 on the other hand. On 7.7.1992, appellant initiated proceeding for eviction of the respondents from the shop alleging that the tenant Vijay Gautam had sublet the premises to Harbhajan Singh which subletting has been continued by the heirs Respondent No.1 2, after the death of Vijay Gautam. A ground of default in payment of rent was also taken. The suit for eviction was dismissed by the Controller and the dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority as also by the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontravention, the court cannot say, 'guilt of his predecessor in interest' will suffice. The flouting of the law, the sin under the Rent Act must be the sin of the tenant sought to be evicted, and not that of his father or predecessor in interest. Respondent inherited the tenancy, not the sin, if any, of his father. The law in its wisdom seeks to punish the guilty who commits the sin, and not his son who is innocent of the rent law offence. It being a penal provision in the sense that it visits the violator with the punishment of eviction, it must be strictly construed. A.S. Sulochana's case came up for the consideration of a three-Judges Bench of this Court in Imdad Ali Vs. Keshav Chand Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 635, though in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61. The Bench also said ___ We do not subscribe to the general observations made in A.S. Sulochana's case and to the said extent it cannot be held to have laid down a good law and is overruled accordingly . The relevant provision of the H.P. Act reads as under:- 14.(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied__ xxx xxx xxx (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord__ (a) transferred his rights under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... device is at times adopted by unscrupulous tenants and sub-tenants of bringing into existence a deed of partnership which gives the relationship of tenant and sub-tenant an outward appearance of partnership while in effect what has come into existence is a sub-tenancy or parting with possession camouflaged under the cloak of partnership. Merely because a tenant has entered into a partnership he cannot necessarily be held to have sublet the premises or parted with possession thereof in favour of his partners. If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains the use and control over the tenancy premises with him, may be along with the partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted with possession. However, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eality of the transaction. The existence of deed of partnership between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant would not preclude the landlord from bringing on record material and circumstances, by adducing evidence or by means of cross examination, making out a case of sub-letting or parting with possession or interest in tenancy premises by tenant in favour of a third person. The rule as to exclusion of oral by documentary evidence governs the parties to the deed in writing. A stranger to the document is not bound by the terms of the document and is, therefore, not excluded from demonstrating the untrue or collusive nature of the document or the fraudulent or illegal purpose for which it was brought into being. An enquiry into reality of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
