V.K. Veeraraghava Reddiar Vs. Urudu Madarssa (Arabic School) and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
tenancy - subletting - section 10 of tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 - landlord filed eviction petition on ground of subletting - premises let out to partnership firm - partnership firm later dissolved and business carried out by one of partners - partner carrying business not one in whose name earlier business was running - this fact does not effect status of business - subletting not proved. - - the account books, licences, telephone bills, salary books, registers maintained under the labour act, income-tax assessment order and other correspondence like exhibits b-12 to b. 1 in his chief-examination has clearly stated that he let out the premises to the partnership firm. it was therefore pleaded that the rent control appellate authority was not correct in reversing the well considered decision of the rent controller. on the facts available on record the rent control appellate authority failed to apply the correct legal principles on this point.order1. the second respondent in the eviction petition is the petitioner herein. the petition for eviction was filed under s. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act (xviii of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. urudu madarssa (arabic school) represented by its secretary is the owner of the petition premises. the first respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the shop no. 1 in madarassa building shopping complex, shanmugham road, tambaram. the case of the landlord is as under :--the petition premises was let out to the first respondent in the year 1971. the building is a non-residential one and the tenancy is monthly tenancy. originally the rent was at rs. 80/-per month, later on it was enhanced to rs. 100/- per month and at present the rent is at rs. 120/- per month. the first respondent paid an advance of rs. 8,000/- and this has to be adjusted from a portion of the monthly rent payable by the tenant. thus, at present out of rs. 120/- per month payable by the tenant, rs. 60/- per month is adjustable towards the advance amount and the tenant is to pay a sum of rs. 60/- per month. according to the landlord, the first respondent without the written consent of the landlord sublet the petition premises to the second respondent. hence, the landlord gave a notice dated 24-11-1980 calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises since the same was let out unauthorisedly without prior permission of the landlord to the second respondent. the first respondent sent a reply, denying the sub-tenancy. the second respondent sent a notice to the landlord dated 12-12-1980 alleging that there was no sub-tenancy in this case, since the petition premises was let out to the partnership firm, in which the second respondent was a partner.2. the case of the first respondent is as under :the petition premises was let out to apartnership concern. the partnership consisting of one lakshminarayanan, gangadara naicker and veeraraghava reddy and one minor harikrishnan was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. it is not correct to state that the petition premises was let out to the first respondent. the name of the firm is 'govindasamy reddiar rice mundy'. the partnership business has been now dissolved and the business is now being carried on by the second respondent. therefore, there is no subletting in this case as alleged by the landlord.3. the case of the second respondent is as under :mr. mkn. mohammed gani is not the authorised agent of the alleged urudu madrasa (arabic school). mr. m. k. n. mohammed gani is not entitled to represent the urudu madarasa. the petition premises was let out to the partnership concern, govindasamy reddiar rice mundy. it is not correct to state that the property was let out to the first respondent. the partnership was started in the year 1970 and it was carrying on business under the name and style of 'sri govindasamy reddiar rice mundy'. a sum of rs. 8,000/- was paid as advance on behalf of the partnership firm by the first respondent. therefore, the sum of rs. 8,000/- was not paid by the first respondent in his individual capacity. the partnership firm was paying the rent ever since the inception of the tenancy. now the partnership is dissolved and the second respondent is carrying on the business. therefore, there is no subletting as alleged by the petitioner in this case. the petitioner is a public trust and hence the rent controller has got no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.4. the petitioners filed as many as thirty documents and the respondents filed 190 documents. mohammed gani examined himself as p.w. 1. v. k. veeraraghavan examined himself as r. w. 1. one ariyappa was examined as r. w. 2. considering the facts arising in this case, the rent controller dismissed the petition for eviction. on appeal, the rent control appellate authority considering the facts arising in this case held that the first respondent sublet the petition premises to the second respondent without the written consent of the landlord. accordingly, the rent control appellate authority set aside the order passed by the rent controller, allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. it is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the second respondent.5. the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/petitioner herein submitted as under :the appellate authority was not correct in coming to the conclusion that since two cheques were issued by govindasamy reddiar, the tenancy is in favour of the said govindasamy reddiar in his individual capacity. there is no evidence on record to show that the advances were paid by govindasamy reddier in his individual capacity. the partnership firm govindasamy reddiar rice mundy was formed in august, 1970 as evidenced by ex. b. 7. since the partnership firm desires to have a branch, the petition premises was taken on lease and the advance was paid. the petition premises itself was constructed in april, 1971 as can be seen from ex. b. 190. the firm started functioning in the premises soon after the construction was over in april, 1971 as evidenced by ex. b. 3 dated 26-3-1971. the firm applied for registration of the firm. ex. b. 4 is the application for registration with the income-tax authorities. it is not correct to state that the firm did not do any business in the petition premises. the account books, licences, telephone bills, salary books, registers maintained under the labour act, income-tax assessment order and other correspondence like exhibits b-12 to b.190 would go to show that the firm was doing business in the petition premises. the appellate authority misdirected itself in interpreting the documents filed by the petitioner herein. in ex. b. 1 and ex. b. 2, it is shown that the business is known as thiru gonvida-samy reddiar rice mundy. because of the word 'thiru', the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the tenancy is in the individual name of govindasamy reddiar. therefore, the first appellate authority held that the lease was in favour of govindasamyreddiar in his individual capacity. the partnership firm was recognised as a tenant in march, 1980. therefore, it cannot be said that the second respondent is an unauthorised sub-tenant on the dissolution of the partnership as it has been held in (1986) 99 mlw 741. there cannot be any sub-tenancy when a dissolution of the partnership takes place or when a partner retires, as per the decision of this court in (1979) i mlj 504. ex. a.10 was not proved in accordance with law. in ex. a. 12, the second respondent intimated about the disolution and that he has been doing the business after the dissolution. therefore, there cannot be any sub-tenancy as alleged by the landlord. it is not correct to state that on the basis of exhibits a-10 to a-14 and a-30, that the original tenancy was in favour of govindasamy reddiar in his individual capacity, ex. a.16 reply was not considered by the appellate authority. the first respondent was not examined as a witness. p.w. 1 in his chief-examination has clearly stated that he let out the premises to the partnership firm. it was therefore pleaded that the rent control appellate authority was not correct in reversing the well considered decision of the rent controller. it was therefore pleaded that the order of the rent control appellate authority is liable to be set aside.6. on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord submitted as under :the petition premises was let out to the first respondent in his individual capacity. it was not let out to the partnership firm as alleged by the petitioner herein. a sum of rs. 8,000/-was paid by the first respondent in his individual capacity. there is no mention at the time of payment that this was paid on behalf of the partnership firm. the possession was parted with by the first respondent in the eviction petition in favour of the second respondent, hence there is sub-letting. the advance of rs. 8,000/- was paid by way of cheque by the first respondent. it is not correct to state that the partnership was started in the year 1970. the partnership was not doing its business in the petition premises. the first respondent was doing the business in the petition premises and this was sub-let to the second respondent without the written consent of the landlord. in order to prove their case, the first respondent was not examined. the first respondent requested the landlord to transfer the tenancy in favour of the second respondent. till 4-10-1980, the rent was received from the first respondent. in ex. b.2 the name of govindasamy reddiar is mentioned as tenant. his name was preceded by the word 'thiru' and the initial. therefore, it cannot be said that the petition premises was taken on lease by the partnership firm. the second respondent was not consistent in saying under what mode the advance of rs. 8,000/- was paid. it was therefore pleaded that the rent control appellate authority was correct in ordering eviction.7. i have heard the rival submissions.8. the petition for eviction was filed under s. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the act. according to the landlord, the petition premises was originally let out to the first respondent in his individual capacity and the first respondent without any written consent of the landlord sub-let the petition premises to the second respondent. therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted. according to the second respondent-petitioner herein, the petition premises was let out to a partnership concern, in which first and second respondents and others were, partners and after the dissolution of the partnership, the second respondent is now carrying on the business and therefore there is no sub-letting as alleged by the landlord. the first point for consideration in this revision is to whom does the petition premises was let out, whether to the first respondent in his individual capacity or to the partnership firm as alleged by the second respondent. there is no written lease agreement in this case. ex. a-30 is the copy of the current statement of account furnished by the indian overseas bank, thambaram branch. this document shows the account maintained by mr. t. g. govindasamy reddiar no. 48, mudichur road, thambaram. according to this document, a cheque for rs. 6,000/- dated 9-3-1970 was given. so also on 14-12-1970, 'another cheque for rs. 2000/- was given. the landlord accepted that these sums were paidby govindasamy reddiar towards advance. the advance was paid even before the construction was completed with regard to the petition premises. after the construction was completed in 1971, the petition premises was let out to the first respondent according to the landlord. according to the second respondent, this advance was paid by govindasamy reddiar on behalf of the partnership firm 'thiru govindasamy reddiar rice mundy'. a partnership was in existence from 7-8-1970 under the name and style of 'govindasamy reddiar rice mundy'. t. g. lakshminarayanan, veera-raghavan reddiar, gengadara naicker are partners and harikrishnan who was a minor was admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm. the principal place of business is shown as no. 48, mudichur road, thambaram, madras 45. according to the landlord, this partnership firm was not functioning in the petition premises. it was functioning at no. 48 mudichur road, thambaram, madras-45. though the partnership came into existence, on 7-8-1970, the partnership deed was written on 16-5-1970. this firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 10-9-1980. the firm was dissolved on 30-4-1980. according to the dissolution deed, the business carried on at no. 1, urudu madarasa building, shanmugham road, thambaram was allotted to veeraraghavan. ex. a.10 is the letter dated 11-6-1980. this letter was written by govindasamy reddiar in which he asked the secretary to furnish particulars about the amount due from him up to 31-3-1980, in the said letter, it is stated as under :(vernacular matter omitted)the first respondent avoided the witness-box. in view of these facts, the learned appellate authority pointed out that the partnership business was not carried on in the petition premises. ex. a-11 is the reply to ex. a-10. there was no reply for this from the first respondent. instead of that the second respondent gave a reply ex. a-12 dated 8-8-1980. from this letter, the landlord came to know that the petition premises was sub-let by the first respondent to the second respondent. thereafter, under ex. a.13, the landlord sent a notice dated 23-8-1989, for which ex. a-14 reply dated 25-9-1980 was given by the first respondent, wherein it is stated that he was doing the business along with the second respondent. under ex. a.14, the first respondent required the landlord to change the tenancy in favour of the second respondent. so also under ex. a. 12 the second respondent requested the landlord to change the tenancy in his favour. up to march, 1980, according to the landlord the rent was received from the first respondent as a tenant. exs. b.1 to b.3 are pocket note books showing the payment of rent by govindasamy reddiar rice mundy for the petition premises.9. it is significant to note that where a tenant took the petition premises for the purpose of conducting his business and in the course of his business, if he formed a partnership and doing partnership business in the rented premises, it would not amount to subletting the premises, because there is no parting with the possession of the rented premises, so also, if the premises was let out for a partnership business and after the dissolution of the partnership if the business is allotted to an erstwhile partner, then also there is no sub-letting. but in the present case, the petitioner herein submitted that the partnership business though started in mudichur road, it was also functioning in the petition premises. therefore, it it for the petitioner herein to establish that the partnership started in the year 1970 and dissolved in july, 1980 was functioning in the petition premises. if the petitioner herein established this fact, then he can escape from the eviction. now the petitioner herein is conducting the business under the name and style of 'ganga-daram mundy' in the petition premises.10. in order to support his contention that the partnership firm govindasamy reddiar rice mundy was functioning in the petition premises ever since the petition premises was let out, the petitioner herein filed 190 documents. ex. a.9 is the copy of the telephone directory at page no. 64, wherein the telephone number 48610 was allotted to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, no. 1 shanmugham road, madras-45, ex. a.12 is the letter written by karur vysya bank,thambaram branch. according to this letter, the current account no. 150 is in the name of m/s. govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, thambaram, madras from 1976 to 1981. ex. b.18 is the professional tax receipt issued by the municipality. according to the said letter govindasamy reddiar rice mundy is situate at no. 1, shanmugham road, thambaram, madras-45. ex. b.20 is the licence for industries and factories dated 13-2-1973. according to this document, govindasamy reddiar rice mundy is functioning at no. 1, shanmugham road, thambaram, madras-45. ex. b.25 is the receipt issued by the municipality. according to this receipt, govindasamy reddiar rice mundy is functioning at no. 1, shanmugham road, thambaram, madras-45. ex. b. 26 is the receipt for collection of fee for issue of licence for industries and factories. according to this document, govindasamy reddiar rice mundy was functioning at no. 1, shanmugham road, thambaram on 29-2-1976. ex. b.27 is the receipt issued by thambaram municipality dated 23-12-1977, wherein it is stated that in 1977-78 govindasamy reddiar rice mundy was functioning at no. 1, shanmugham road, thambaram, ex.b. 59 is the national holidays register maintained by govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, mosque building, shanmugham road, and ex. b. 60 is the salary register maintained by govindasamy reddiar rice mundy under shops and establishments act. ex. b.61 is national holidays register. ex. b.62 is the register maintained by govindasamy reddiar rice mundy under the shops and establishments act. ex. b.63 is the labour inspector's note book. ex. b.65 and ex.b.66 are receipts for collection of fees for industries and factories in the year 1971 from govindasamy reddiar rice mundy. ex b.76 is the income-tax assessment order for the year 1979-80. ex. b.79 is the chalan for payment of tax for the assessment year 1977-78. ex. b.83 is the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81 for the registered firm m/s. govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, no. 1, mosque building, shanmugham road, thambaram. ex.b.88 is the statement of account for m/s. govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, mosque building, shanmugham road, thambaram prepared by a chartered accountant. ex. b.90 is the current account passbook issued by the karur vysya bank, thambaram branch. this pass book is issued in the name of govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram. the accounts begins from the year 1977. ex. b.92 is the receipt for payment of sales tax for govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, dated 9-11-1976. ex. b.94 document is series of 'c' forms and 'f' forms under general sales tax act in the name of govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram. ex.b.99 is the letter dated 25-7-1981 issued by the commercial tax officer to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram. ex.b. 100 is the notice of final assessment refund order to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram. ex.b. 10 is the proceedings of the assistant commercial tax officer dated 1-8-1981 relating to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy at shanmugham road, thambaram. ex.b. 103 is the letter from the deputy commissioner, commercial tax office, to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram dated 8-1-1982. ex.b. 106 is the receipt for payment of sales tax for govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram dated 14-4-1976. ex. b. 109 is also receipt for payment of sales tax by govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram, ex.b. 112 is the summons under the tamil nadu general sales tax act to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, mosque building, shanmugham road, thambaram dated 6-11-1976. ex.b. 113 is the summons under the sales tax act to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, mosque building, thambaram dated 13-12-1976. ex.b. 116 is the letter from the tamil nadu government to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram dated 18-11-1974. ex.b. 117 is the licence issued to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram dated 6-1-1975. ex.b. 118 is the quality certificate issued by t.n.g.s.c. to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram dated 19-5-1977. exs.b. 124 and b. 125 are the letters from the assistant commissioner to thedistrict supply officer for issue of licence to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shan-mugham road, thambaram. ex. 8.127 is the tetter issued by reserve bank of india, madras dated 11-1-1978 to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy, shanmugham road, thambaram. likewise up to ex. r.190 there are numerous documents to show that govindasamy reddiar rice mundy was functioning at the petition premises. therefore, till the notice was issued by the landlord, for eviction, no objection was taken for functioning of the abovesaid partnership business in the petition premises.11. thus it remains to be seen that all the governmental authorities addressed their communication to govindasamy reddiar rice mundy to the shop at shanmugham road, thambaram, where the petition premises is situate. in fact, up to 1979, the landlord was receiving the rent from the second respondent in the eviction petition. in the oral evidence, r.w.1 himself accepted that the petition premises was let out to the parthership firm. therefore at this stage the 'landlord cannot say that the partnership business was not functioning in the petition premises. according to the petitioner herein after dissolution of the partnership firm, the erstwhile partner, to whom the business was allotted to his share is now conducting the business.12. if on a stoppage of business, one of the partners is handed over the entire business premises in which he carries on his business, thereafter, it is not a case of subletting (see sunku subramanian chetty v. v. r. chetty gurusami chetty and co. (1972) 1 mlj (sn) 37. so also in the case of subba chetty v. madras stainless emporium : (1979)1mlj504 , it was held that the occupation of the premises by the new partnership in which one of the partners was admittedly a partner of the dissolved partnership, which was the original tenant cannot be said to be as a result of subletting by the quandum dissolved firm.13. thus in the present case, even according to p.w. 1 the premises was let out to the partnership firm. further the fact that the partnership firm was functioning in the petition premises before dissolution was proved by filing overwhelming documentary evidence. after dissolution, one of the erst-while partner is carrying on the business in the petition premises. therefore there is no subletting by the first respondent to the second respondent as alleged by the petitioner in the eviction petition. on the facts available on record the rent control appellate authority failed to apply the correct legal principles on this point. hence the order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority is liable to be set aside. accordingly, i do so.14. in that view of the matter, the order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority is set aside and that of the rent controller restored, and the petition for eviction is dismissed.15. in the result, the revision is allowed. however, there will be no order as to costs.16. revision allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Second Respondent in the eviction petition is the Petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Urudu Madarssa (Arabic School) represented by its Secretary is the owner of the petition premises. The First Respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the shop No. 1 in Madarassa Building Shopping Complex, Shanmugham Road, Tambaram. The case of the landlord is as under :--

The petition premises was let out to the first Respondent in the year 1971. The building is a non-residential one and the tenancy is monthly tenancy. Originally the rent was at Rs. 80/-per month, later on it was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month and at present the rent is at Rs. 120/- per month. The First Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 8,000/- and this has to be adjusted from a portion of the monthly rent payable by the tenant. Thus, at present out of Rs. 120/- per month payable by the tenant, Rs. 60/- per month is adjustable towards the advance amount and the tenant is to pay a sum of Rs. 60/- per month. According to the landlord, the First Respondent without the written consent of the landlord sublet the petition premises to the Second Respondent. Hence, the landlord gave a notice dated 24-11-1980 calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises since the same was let out unauthorisedly without prior permission of the landlord to the Second Respondent. The First Respondent sent a reply, denying the sub-tenancy. The Second Respondent sent a notice to the landlord dated 12-12-1980 alleging that there was no sub-tenancy in this case, since the petition premises was let out to the partnership firm, in which the Second Respondent was a partner.

2. The case of the First Respondent is as under :

The Petition premises was let out to apartnership concern. The partnership consisting of one Lakshminarayanan, Gangadara Naicker and Veeraraghava Reddy and one minor Harikrishnan was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. It is not correct to state that the petition premises was let out to the First Respondent. The name of the firm is 'Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy'. The partnership business has been now dissolved and the business is now being carried on by the Second Respondent. Therefore, there is no subletting in this case as alleged by the landlord.

3. The case of the Second Respondent is as under :

Mr. MKN. Mohammed Gani is not the authorised agent of the alleged Urudu Madrasa (Arabic School). Mr. M. K. N. Mohammed Gani is not entitled to represent the Urudu Madarasa. The petition premises was let out to the partnership concern, Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy. It is not correct to state that the property was let out to the First Respondent. The partnership was started in the year 1970 and it was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Sri Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy'. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was paid as advance on behalf of the partnership firm by the First Respondent. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 8,000/- was not paid by the First Respondent in his individual capacity. The partnership firm was paying the rent ever since the inception of the tenancy. Now the partnership is dissolved and the Second Respondent is carrying on the business. Therefore, there is no subletting as alleged by the petitioner in this case. The petitioner is a public trust and hence the rent controller has got no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

4. The petitioners filed as many as thirty documents and the respondents filed 190 documents. Mohammed Gani examined himself as P.W. 1. V. K. Veeraraghavan examined himself as R. W. 1. One Ariyappa was examined as R. W. 2. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the facts arising in this case held that the First Respondent sublet the petition premises to the Second Respondent without the written consent of the landlord. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the Second Respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Second Respondent/Petitioner herein submitted as under :

The Appellate Authority was not correct in coming to the conclusion that since two cheques were issued by Govindasamy Reddiar, the tenancy is in favour of the said Govindasamy Reddiar in his individual capacity. There is no evidence on record to show that the advances were paid by Govindasamy Reddier in his individual capacity. The Partnership firm Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy was formed in August, 1970 as evidenced by Ex. B. 7. Since the partnership firm desires to have a branch, the petition premises was taken on lease and the advance was paid. The petition premises itself was constructed in April, 1971 as can be seen from Ex. B. 190. The firm started functioning in the premises soon after the construction was over in April, 1971 as evidenced by Ex. B. 3 dated 26-3-1971. The firm applied for registration of the firm. Ex. B. 4 is the application for registration with the Income-tax authorities. It is not correct to state that the firm did not do any business in the petition premises. The account books, licences, telephone bills, salary books, registers maintained under the Labour Act, Income-tax Assessment Order and other correspondence like Exhibits B-12 to B.190 would go to show that the firm was doing business in the petition premises. The Appellate Authority misdirected itself in interpreting the documents filed by the Petitioner herein. In Ex. B. 1 and Ex. B. 2, it is shown that the business is known as Thiru Gonvida-samy Reddiar Rice Mundy. Because of the word 'Thiru', the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenancy is in the individual name of Govindasamy Reddiar. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority held that the lease was in favour of GovindasamyReddiar in his individual capacity. The partnership firm was recognised as a tenant in March, 1980. Therefore, it cannot be said that the second respondent is an unauthorised sub-tenant on the dissolution of the partnership as it has been held in (1986) 99 MLW 741. There cannot be any sub-tenancy when a dissolution of the partnership takes place or when a partner retires, as per the decision of this Court in (1979) I MLJ 504. Ex. A.10 was not proved in accordance with law. In Ex. A. 12, the Second Respondent intimated about the disolution and that he has been doing the business after the dissolution. Therefore, there cannot be any sub-tenancy as alleged by the landlord. It is not correct to state that on the basis of Exhibits A-10 to A-14 and A-30, that the original tenancy was in favour of Govindasamy Reddiar in his individual capacity, Ex. A.16 reply was not considered by the Appellate Authority. The first respondent was not examined as a witness. P.W. 1 in his chief-examination has clearly stated that he let out the premises to the partnership firm. It was therefore pleaded that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in reversing the well considered decision of the Rent Controller. It was therefore pleaded that the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord submitted as under :

The petition premises was let out to the first respondent in his individual capacity. It was not let out to the partnership firm as alleged by the petitioner herein. A sum of Rs. 8,000/-was paid by the first respondent in his individual capacity. There is no mention at the time of payment that this was paid on behalf of the partnership firm. The possession was parted with by the first respondent in the eviction petition in favour of the second respondent, hence there is sub-letting. The advance of Rs. 8,000/- was paid by way of cheque by the first respondent. It is not correct to state that the partnership was started in the year 1970. The partnership was not doing its business in the petition premises. The first respondent was doing the business in the petition premises and this was sub-let to the second respondent without the written consent of the landlord. In order to prove their case, the first respondent was not examined. The first respondent requested the landlord to transfer the tenancy in favour of the second respondent. Till 4-10-1980, the rent was received from the first respondent. In Ex. B.2 the name of Govindasamy Reddiar is mentioned as tenant. His name was preceded by the word 'Thiru' and the initial. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petition premises was taken on lease by the partnership firm. The second respondent was not consistent in saying under what mode the advance of Rs. 8,000/- was paid. It was therefore pleaded that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in ordering eviction.

7. I have heard the rival submissions.

8. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. According to the landlord, the petition premises was originally let out to the first respondent in his individual capacity and the first respondent without any written consent of the landlord sub-let the petition premises to the second respondent. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted. According to the second respondent-petitioner herein, the petition premises was let out to a partnership concern, in which first and second respondents and others were, partners and after the dissolution of the partnership, the second respondent is now carrying on the business and therefore there is no sub-letting as alleged by the landlord. The first point for consideration in this revision is to whom does the petition premises was let out, whether to the first respondent in his individual capacity or to the partnership firm as alleged by the second respondent. There is no written lease agreement in this case. Ex. A-30 is the copy of the current statement of account furnished by the Indian Overseas Bank, Thambaram Branch. This document shows the account maintained by Mr. T. G. Govindasamy Reddiar No. 48, Mudichur Road, Thambaram. According to this document, a cheque for Rs. 6,000/- dated 9-3-1970 was given. So also on 14-12-1970, 'another cheque for Rs. 2000/- was given. The landlord accepted that these sums were paidby Govindasamy Reddiar towards advance. The advance was paid even before the construction was completed with regard to the petition premises. After the construction was completed in 1971, the petition premises was let out to the first respondent according to the landlord. According to the second respondent, this advance was paid by Govindasamy Reddiar on behalf of the partnership firm 'Thiru Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy'. A partnership was in existence from 7-8-1970 under the name and style of 'Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy'. T. G. Lakshminarayanan, Veera-raghavan Reddiar, Gengadara Naicker are partners and Harikrishnan who was a minor was admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm. The Principal place of business is shown as No. 48, Mudichur Road, Thambaram, Madras 45. According to the landlord, this partnership firm was not functioning in the petition premises. It was functioning at No. 48 Mudichur Road, Thambaram, Madras-45. Though the partnership came into existence, on 7-8-1970, the partnership deed was written on 16-5-1970. This firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 10-9-1980. The firm was dissolved on 30-4-1980. According to the dissolution deed, the business carried on at No. 1, Urudu Madarasa Building, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram was allotted to Veeraraghavan. Ex. A.10 is the letter dated 11-6-1980. This letter was written by Govindasamy Reddiar in which he asked the Secretary to furnish particulars about the amount due from him up to 31-3-1980, In the said letter, it is stated as under :

(Vernacular matter omitted)

The first respondent avoided the witness-box. In view of these facts, the learned Appellate Authority pointed out that the partnership business was not carried on in the petition premises. Ex. A-11 is the reply to Ex. A-10. There was no reply for this from the first respondent. Instead of that the second respondent gave a reply Ex. A-12 dated 8-8-1980. From this letter, the landlord came to know that the petition premises was sub-let by the first respondent to the second respondent. Thereafter, under Ex. A.13, the landlord sent a notice dated 23-8-1989, for which Ex. A-14 reply dated 25-9-1980 was given by the first respondent, wherein it is stated that he was doing the business along with the second respondent. Under Ex. A.14, the first respondent required the landlord to change the tenancy in favour of the second respondent. So also under Ex. A. 12 the second respondent requested the landlord to change the tenancy in his favour. Up to March, 1980, according to the landlord the rent was received from the first respondent as a tenant. Exs. B.1 to B.3 are pocket note books showing the payment of rent by Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy for the petition premises.

9. It is significant to note that where a tenant took the petition premises for the purpose of conducting his business and in the course of his business, if he formed a partnership and doing partnership business in the rented premises, it would not amount to subletting the premises, because there is no parting with the possession of the rented premises, So also, if the premises was let out for a partnership business and after the dissolution of the partnership if the business is allotted to an erstwhile partner, then also there is no sub-letting. But in the present case, the petitioner herein submitted that the partnership business though started in Mudichur Road, it was also functioning in the petition premises. Therefore, it it for the petitioner herein to establish that the partnership started in the year 1970 and dissolved in July, 1980 was functioning in the petition premises. If the petitioner herein established this fact, then he can escape from the eviction. Now the petitioner herein is conducting the business under the name and style of 'Ganga-daram Mundy' in the petition premises.

10. In order to support his contention that the partnership firm Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy was functioning in the petition premises ever since the petition premises was let out, the petitioner herein filed 190 documents. Ex. A.9 is the copy of the telephone directory at page No. 64, wherein the telephone number 48610 was allotted to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, No. 1 Shanmugham Road, Madras-45, Ex. A.12 is the letter written by Karur Vysya Bank,Thambaram Branch. According to this letter, the current account No. 150 is in the name of M/s. Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Thambaram, Madras from 1976 to 1981. Ex. B.18 is the professional tax receipt issued by the Municipality. According to the said letter Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy is situate at No. 1, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram, Madras-45. Ex. B.20 is the licence for industries and factories dated 13-2-1973. According to this document, Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy is functioning at No. 1, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram, Madras-45. Ex. B.25 is the receipt issued by the Municipality. According to this receipt, Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy is functioning at No. 1, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram, Madras-45. Ex. B. 26 is the receipt for collection of fee for issue of licence for Industries and Factories. According to this document, Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy was functioning at No. 1, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram on 29-2-1976. Ex. B.27 is the receipt issued by Thambaram Municipality dated 23-12-1977, wherein it is stated that in 1977-78 Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy was functioning at No. 1, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram, Ex.B. 59 is the National Holidays Register maintained by Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Mosque Building, Shanmugham Road, and Ex. B. 60 is the salary register maintained by Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy under Shops and Establishments Act. Ex. B.61 is National Holidays register. Ex. B.62 is the register maintained by Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy under the Shops and Establishments Act. Ex. B.63 is the Labour Inspector's note book. Ex. B.65 and Ex.B.66 are receipts for collection of fees for Industries and Factories in the year 1971 from Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy. Ex B.76 is the Income-tax assessment order for the year 1979-80. Ex. B.79 is the chalan for payment of tax for the assessment year 1977-78. Ex. B.83 is the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81 for the registered firm M/s. Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, No. 1, Mosque Building, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. Ex.B.88 is the statement of account for M/s. Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Mosque Building, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram prepared by a Chartered Accountant. Ex. B.90 is the current account passbook issued by the Karur Vysya Bank, Thambaram Branch. This pass book is issued in the name of Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. The accounts begins from the year 1977. Ex. B.92 is the receipt for payment of sales tax for Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, dated 9-11-1976. Ex. B.94 document is series of 'C' Forms and 'F' Forms under General Sales Tax Act in the name of Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. Ex.B.99 is the letter dated 25-7-1981 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. Ex.B. 100 is the notice of final assessment refund order to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. Ex.B. 10 is the proceedings of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer dated 1-8-1981 relating to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy at Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. Ex.B. 103 is the letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram dated 8-1-1982. Ex.B. 106 is the receipt for payment of sales tax for Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram dated 14-4-1976. Ex. B. 109 is also receipt for payment of sales tax by Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram, Ex.B. 112 is the summons under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Mosque Building, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram dated 6-11-1976. Ex.B. 113 is the summons under the Sales Tax Act to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Mosque Building, Thambaram dated 13-12-1976. Ex.B. 116 is the letter from the Tamil Nadu Government to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram dated 18-11-1974. Ex.B. 117 is the licence issued to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram dated 6-1-1975. Ex.B. 118 is the quality certificate issued by T.N.G.S.C. to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram dated 19-5-1977. Exs.B. 124 and B. 125 are the letters from the Assistant Commissioner to theDistrict Supply Officer for issue of licence to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shan-mugham Road, Thambaram. Ex. 8.127 is the tetter issued by Reserve Bank of India, Madras dated 11-1-1978 to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy, Shanmugham Road, Thambaram. Likewise up to Ex. R.190 there are numerous documents to show that Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy was functioning at the petition premises. Therefore, till the notice was issued by the landlord, for eviction, no objection was taken for functioning of the abovesaid partnership business in the petition premises.

11. Thus it remains to be seen that all the governmental authorities addressed their communication to Govindasamy Reddiar Rice Mundy to the shop at Shanmugham Road, Thambaram, where the petition premises is situate. In fact, up to 1979, the landlord was receiving the rent from the Second Respondent in the eviction petition. In the oral evidence, R.W.1 himself accepted that the petition premises was let out to the parthership firm. Therefore at this stage the 'landlord cannot say that the partnership business was not functioning in the petition premises. According to the petitioner herein after dissolution of the partnership firm, the erstwhile partner, to whom the business was allotted to his share is now conducting the business.

12. If on a stoppage of business, one of the partners is handed over the entire business premises in which he carries on his business, thereafter, it is not a case of subletting (See Sunku Subramanian Chetty v. V. R. Chetty Gurusami Chetty and Co. (1972) 1 MLJ (SN) 37. So also in the case of Subba Chetty v. Madras Stainless Emporium : (1979)1MLJ504 , it was held that the occupation of the premises by the new partnership in which one of the partners was admittedly a partner of the dissolved partnership, which was the original tenant cannot be said to be as a result of subletting by the quandum dissolved firm.

13. Thus in the present case, even according to P.W. 1 the premises was let out to the partnership firm. Further the fact that the partnership firm was functioning in the petition premises before dissolution was proved by filing overwhelming documentary evidence. After dissolution, one of the erst-while partner is carrying on the business in the petition premises. Therefore there is no subletting by the First Respondent to the Second Respondent as alleged by the Petitioner in the eviction petition. On the facts available on record the Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to apply the correct legal principles on this point. Hence the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I do so.

14. In that view of the matter, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller restored, and the petition for eviction is dismissed.

15. In the result, the revision is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

16. Revision allowed.