Mithan Lal, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal filed by the landlord arises out of a suit for possession by eviction of the Defendants. The facts of the case have not been disputed. The Plaintiff Appellant is the owner of the shop in dispute which was let out to Defendant No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12 -8 -0 per mensem. No rent was in arrears except for one month. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 2 had sublet the shop to Defendant No. 2 after taking some premium and as the subletting of the shop was without the consent of the Plaintiff, therefore, he was liable to ejectment. A notice of eviction was also served and then the suit was brought.
(2.) BOTH the Defendant -Respondents contested the suit. Their main plea was that there was no subletting of the shop by Defendant No. 1 and that both the Defendants had entered into a partnership business and so both of them were continuing in possession. It was disputed that any premium or pagri had been taken from Defendant No. 2 and the taking of Defendant No. 2 as a partner was said not to amount to any subletting. Both the Courts below have found that Defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the shop in dispute at Rs. 12 -8 -10 per mensem rent, that no pagri was taken from Defendant No. 2, but as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a partnership in September 1950 this partnership was being run in the shop instead of the single owned business of Defendant No. 1. According to the view taken by both the Courts below it does not amount to subletting and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any decree for ejectment. The suit was accordingly dismissed. It is against these findings that the present appeal has been instituted.
(3.) THE matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who thought that the question "Whether by converting the business from a single owned business into a partnership business there was any subletting" was an important question and consequently the matter was referred to a Bench.;