GUNDALAPALLI RANGAMANNAR CHETTY Vs. DESU RANGIAH
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
GUNDALAPALLI RANGAMANNAR CHETTY
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, J. -
(1.) This is an application for issuing a writ of eertiorari, and for quashing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in C. M. A. No. 35 of 1950.
(2.) The first respondent, Desu Rangaiah, took the premises bearing door No. 258, Ward No. 5, Stonehousepet, Nellore belonging to the petitioner on rent 10 years ago for his business. Two years back he entered into a partnership with Thadikamalla Venkataseshayya and Posa Veeranna for carrying on business in onions. The partnership arrangement was embodied in a deed, Ex. B. 1. Under Ex. B. 1 the leasehold interest was not transferred to the partners. That related only to the partnership business to be carried on Jointly by the first respondent Desu Rangiah, Venkataseshayya and Posa Veeranna. It regulated only the rights and liabilities in regard to the business. The first respondent continued to be in possession of the premises with a liability to pay rent to the petitioner. The rent originally was a sum of Rs. 10. It was enhanced from time to time till it reached the present rate of Rs. 60. Further requests for enhanced rent by the landlord were not acceded to by the first respondent. Presumably this circumstance made the landlord to file M. B. C. No. 32 of 1950 on the file of the House Rent Controller, Nellore for evicting the first respondent from the premises. The main ground for eviction was that the first respondent had sub-let the premises to the second respondent's firm. It was alleged that the first respondent was carrying on business in Srigangarajapuram after sub-letting the premises to the second respondent who was described in the petition as Tadikamalla Vehkataseshaih Posa Veeranna, represented by its two partners. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. In appeal the Subordinate Judge held that there was no sub-letting, and on that finding dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed the above writ.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised before me the same point, which has been negatived by the Subordinate Judge. He contended that by reason of the partnership, in law there was a subletting of the premises to the second respondent within the meaning of Section 7(2)(ii) of Act 25 of 1949. The relevant portion of the section reads:
"Section 7(2): A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied (ii) that the tenant has after 23-10-1945 without a written consent of the landlord (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any rightto do so, the controller shall make an order directing the tenant........" Under this clause, a landlord would be entitled to evict his tenant if he transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or any portion thereof. It was not stated in the petition that the first respondent transferred his right under the lease deed; nor was that point raised before the Subordinate Judge. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to evict the first respondent, only if he established that the first respondent sublet the premises to the second respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.