TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated by the landlord by filing a petition before the rent controller on the ground under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) alleging that the tenant had, without the permission of the landlord, sub-let the premises and parted with possession of the whole of the premises in favour of one Jagdish Chander. According to the tenant-respondent, there was no sub-letting: Jagdish Chander was taken into partnership by him in his pre-existing business run in the suit shop under 'deed of partnership' dated 13/10/1978. 2. The rent controller found that there has been no sub-letting of the premises and, therefore, directed the petition to be dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and are reproduced hereinbelow: 14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or controller in favour of the landlord and against a tenant; Provided that the controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- (a) (b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 6. In the present case, the partnership is evidenced by written deed, According to the contents of the partnership deed, it was the tenant who was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s DP. Zenith Sanitary Engg. Works in the suit premises. He was short of finance and other resources and on his request Jagdish Chander, has agreed to join the tenant as a partner. The share in the profit and loss of the partnership is 50% for each of the two partners. The partners shall maintain a bank account which can be operated by either of the two partners. The possession over the tenancy premises shall continue with the tenant and on the determination of the partnership, the possession shall revert back to the tenant alone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im as partner. 7. The learned rent controller and the High Court have believed the testimony of the tenant-respondent and Jagdish Chander, the alleged sub-tenant. So far as the landlord himself is concerned, his testimony is practically of no assistance. He admitted during the course of his deposition that he had not made any inquiries of himself to find out who were the partners in the business and how and in what manner the business was being carried on in the suit premises. He stated that it was from the wife of the respondent that he had learnt about the respondent-tenant having left India for going abroad and then having returned. No inference relevant to the issue arising in the suit, could have been drawn from the statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stence for disguising a sub-letting in reality. A substantial question of law, therefore, arose before the High Court justifying interference in second appeal with the judgment of reversal recorded by the appellate authority. In addition, the case involved interpretation of the partnership deed and general power of attorney so as to see whether on a totality of the interpretations of recitals contained therein, read in the light of the other facts and circumstances, a case of sub-letting disguised as partnership was made out and needless to say, such interpretation of deeds is a question of law - substantial one in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
