G.K. BHATNAGAR V. ABDUL ALIM (2002) 9 SCC 516
FACTS
Appellant owned a suit shop let out to the tenant-respondent on 1/5/1966 on payment of Rs. 50/- by way of rent and Rs. 6/- by way of electricity charges. On 28/5/1979 proceedings for eviction were initiated by the landlord by filing a petition before the Rent Controller on the ground u/s 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rent Controller: found that there was no sub-letting and therefore directed the petition to be dismissed.
Appellate Authority: reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and directed the petition for eviction to be allowed.
High Court: set aside the judgement of the appellate authority and restored the one by the rent controller.
ISSUE
Is there any sub-letting of the premises in the present case?
JUDGEMENT
Inducting a partner in business or profession by the tenant is permitted so long as such partnership may ostensibly be to carry on the business or profession in partnership, but the real purpose be sub-letting of the premises to such other person who is inducted ostensibly as a partner, then the same shall be deemed to be an act of sub-letting attracting the applicability of S. 14(1)(b) of the Act. In the present case, the partnership is evidenced by written deed.
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 the partners in the business were 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 the landlord.
The learned Rent Controller discussed all the evidence and recorded the finding of fact. The approach adopted by the appellate authority was very superficial in nature and mostly the appellate authority went by surmises and conjectures for the purpose of reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller. In such facts and circumstances, the High Court has not erred in reversing the judgment of the appellate court and restoring that of the trial court.
There is no material available to hold the partnership a sham or nominal one and to hold that the partnership was brought into existence for disguising a sub-letting in reality. The appeal is, therefore, held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.