Devki Nandan vs Om Prakash and another

P.C. Pandit, J.—Devki Nandan is the owner of the shop, situate in Samana, District Patiala, which he had given on rent to Om Prakash in April 1958. In 1967, he filed a petition for ejectment on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises to Gian Chand, whom also be impleaded as a party to the petition.

The petition was resisted both by Om Prakash and Gian Chand. They denied the allegation regarding subletting and their case was that Devki Nandan owned another shop, which was adjacent to the one in dispute, and same had been given on rent by him to Gian Chand. Om Parkash and Gian Chand had started business in partnership along with another relation, Krishan Kumar, in the shop in question in the name of Messrs Gian Chand Om Prakash in 1965.

Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have come to the conclusion that there was neither any subletting nor transfer of the right of tenancy by Om Prakash in favour of Gian Chand. It was also found that there was a partnership amongst Om Prakash, Gian Chand and Krishan Kumar and it was this Partnership which was carrying on the business in the shop in question. On these findings, the ejecment petition was dismissed. The landlord has come here in revision.

In order to prove the partnership, reliance had been placed on the partnership deed, marked R.W. 3/A. There was also a certificate of registration of the said partnership and the same was R.W. 1/A. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on clause 10 of the partnership-deed, which says that Gian Chand and Krishan Kumar shall carry on the partnership business in the name of the partnership. On its basis the argument raised is that Om Prakash, the tenant of the shop, had been outside from the partnership and the deed was merely a camouflage. Om Prakash, according to the Learned Counsel, had left Samana for good and settled in Patiala and. consequently, he was not in possession of the shop in question. The business in the shop was being carried on by Gian Chand and Krishan Kumar and, therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, while going away, Om Prakash had sublet the premises to them.

According to the partnership-deed, Gian Chand had invested Rs. 3,000/. Om Prakash Rs. 6,500/- and Krishan Kumar Rs. 5,000/-. The profits and losses had to be divided amongst the three partners on the following basis:-

Gian Chand

45 Paise in a rupee.

Om Prakash

20 Paise in a rupee.

Krishan Kumar

35 Paise in a rupee.

Clause 9 of the partnership deed says that the partnership books will be maintained at the principal office of the partnership and Gian Chand shall maintain the accounts, but every partner will have an access to it. The finding given by the Appellate Authority is that although Om Prakash had shifted to Patiala, but he used to come from that place and help the other two partners in running the partnership business. If one of the partners leaves the place where the shop is situate, but comes and helps in the management of the business, could it be said that he was removed from the partnership and had nothing to do with it? As I have said, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have come to the conclusion that this partnership-deed was a genuine transaction and since Om Parkash was himself taking part in the partnership, it could not be said that he had sublet the premises to the other two partners, namely, Gian Chand and Krishan Kumar. We have on the record copies of the account-books of the joint business, which show how much capital was invested in the business by the various partner. Then there is also the balance-sheet, which proves that these three partners were carrying on a joint business in the two shops, one of which was given on rent to Om Parkash and the other to Gian Chand by the same landlord, namely, the petitioner. There are also other documents viz. RW. 6/A and RW. 6/B, the former being a licence issued under the sales Tax Act by the Punjab Government and latter a licence given by the Central Government under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax. According to these two documents, it was proved that the firm was paying sales-tax to the State Government and the Central Government on the sale proceeds of the transactions, which were carried on in the abovesaid premises. This apart, there are two receipts of rent. One, Exhibit R.1, dated 11th November, 1965, was for Rs. 190/- and according to it, the petitioner received the rent of the shop, which was given on rent to Om Parkash. The other was RW. 6/X, and it was for Rs. 380/- being the rent for two years for the other shop, which was given on rent to Gian Chand. These two receipts were entered in the Rokar Bahi of the joint firm. If there had been no joint business of the three persons named above, the receipts would not have been entered in the same Bahi. All these documents, therefore, conclusively show that there was a genuine partnership firm amongst Om Prakash, Gian Chand and Krishan Kumar. The mere fact that there is clause 10 in the partnership-deed, which said that out of the three partners. Gian Chand and Krishan Kumar were carrying on the partnership business in the name of the partnership firm, would not show that Om Prakash had nothing to do with the partnership. It is possible that since Om Prakash was permanently residing in Patiala and the business was being carried on in Samana, this clause had been added in the partnership-deed to facilitate the working of the day-to-day business by the two remaining partners. But on this clause alone, it could not be held that the entire partnership was a faked affair. It is undisputed that if a tenant takes with him one or two more partners and carries on a joint business in the premises, which he has taken on rent, that would not afford a ground to the landlord for his eviction. It is only if it is established that he has nothing to do with the partnership business and has completely given over the possession of the premises to other partners that subletting can be inferred. But, in the instant case, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have come to a correct decision that there was no subletting, in as much as there was a valid joint partnership in which Om Parkash was as much a partner as the other two and it was this partnership which was carrying on business in the shop in question.

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.