Hari Chand and Another vs Jai Parkash and Another

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority affirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller ordering ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises.

The facts:--

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an application u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) for eviction of the revision petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) from the shop bearing No. 310, situated in Ward No. 4, Main Bazar, Radaur on the ground that the shop was let out to firm Chamba Ram Hari Chand through Chamba Ram. Chamba Ram died The firm ceased to exist. Hari Ram transferred his leasehold rights to Ishwar Chand and Ram Kishan without the written consent of the landlord.

The tenants, namely, Hari Chand and Ishwar Chand filed a joint written statement pleading that the shop was taken on rent through Chamba Ram for firm Chamba Ram Ishwar Dass alias Ishwar Chand and Hari Chand The firm is registered in the name of Chamba Ram Ishwar Dass. Although Chamba Ham has died but firm Chamba Ram Ishwar Chand still exists. Hari Chand aid not sub-let the demised premises to Ishwar Chand and Ram Kishan. Ram Kishan who was originally arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the eviction application in a separate written statement pleaded that he had never been in possession of the demised shop.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:--

Whether the respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 ? OPA.

Whether the petitioner has accepted respondent No. 2 as his tenant as alleged in the written statement. If so, its effect ? OPR.

Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR.

4 Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties. If so, its effect ? OPR.

Relief.

Issues No. 1 and 2 were disposed of together and the Rent Controller held that Hari Chand one of the partners in the firm Chamba Ram Hari Chand had transferred the lease hold rights to Ishwar Chand. The Counsel for the landlord did not stress before the Rent Controller that Ram Kishan was also in possession or that he had any connection with the tenancy rights. The Rent Controller also held that the landlord did not accept Ishwar Chand as a tenant. Issues No. 3 and 4 were not pressed by the tenants and those were answered against them. The tenants were unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority and they have now come up in revision in this Court.

The undisputed facts are that Chamba Ram took the demised premises on rent for the firm Chamba Ram Hari Chand vide Rent Note dated October 5, 1968 Ex. A-1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The firm appears to have been reconstituted and Ishwar Dass was admitted as a partner as is evidenced by the certificate of registration Ex. R-10 The landlord had been receiving the rent from the firm Chamba Ram Hari Chand till June 30 1980 Ex. R-6. Chamba Ram died in the year 1978 and even after his death firm Chamba Ram Hari Chand continued to exist and the landlord has been receiving rent from this firm as is evidenced vide receipts Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5. Hari Chand did not cease to be a partner of the film Chamba Ram Hari Chand. He denied the allegations made by the landlord that he has ceased to be a partner of the firm. He has challenged the order of eviction in this Court also alongwith Ishwar Dass. The demised premises continued in possession of one of the original tenants Hari Chand. Even if the old partnership firm has ceased to exist and a new firm has been constituted and the old and new firms having a common partner, the occupation will be by One of the original tenants. Hari Chand was the original tenant, Even if Ishar Chand has been admitted as a partner in the firm and is in possession of the same alongwith Hari Chand, it would not amount to sub-letting. Reference can usefully be made to Murli Dhar v. Chuni Lal and Ors. 1970 R.C.J. 911 .(S.C), Bir Bhan and Anr. v Shrimati Rajesh Gupta and Ors. 1978 (2) R.C.R. 257 and Vir Bhan v. Kunj Lal and Anr. (1971) 73 P.L.R. 810. The entire approach of the Appellate Authority is based upon non-application of the correct principle of law to the proved facts of the instant case. Once it is found that one of the partners of the old firm, namely, Hari Chand continued to be partner of the firm and in occupation of demised premises, there can be no sub-letting. Ishwar Dass is admittedly one of the partners. Accepting a new partner in the firm does not amount to sub-letting. Consequently the revision petition is accepted. The orders of the courts below are set aside and the ejectment petition is-dismissed. No order as to costs.