- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Respondent, Madan Mohan Sharma filed Suit No. 69 of 1986 against the present petitioners for recovery of rent as also for possession of a tenanted premises. The suit was initially dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No. 62 of 1990 and the S. C. C. revision was allowed by the District Judge on22-ll-1996.
(2.) BY the revisional order the decree for dismissal was set aside and eviction of the defendants from the suit premises was directed. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on amongst other the ground of subletting. It was stated that the original tenants in the suit premises were running a business under the name and style of Adarsh Vastra Bhandar in the suit premises. This business was a partnership one and they have introduced a person as a partner (present respondent No. 4) who was not a member of their family. Accordingly, it was violative of the provisions of the rent law and this action amounted to sub-letting and the defendants were liable for eviction on this score also. It was the defence case that the per son described as one from outside the family was a partner in the business long prior to the framing of Act No. 13 of 1972 and the rigors of the law would not be applicable to him and that person may not be deemed to be a sub-lessees and the defendants would not, therefore, be liable to eviction.
(3.) CERTAIN undisputed facts are to be mentioned before taking up analysis of the law and the arguments of the parties on the above question. The suit was filed by the present respondent No. 3 who will be described as the plaintiff or in short 'b". The defendants named therein were Rewati Raman (Defendant No. 1 - petitioner No. 1, in short 'd-l') Defendant Radharaman as D2 Krishna Bansal (defendant No. 3- respondent No. 4, in short 'd-3) and Mahesh Chand (defendant No. 4 petitioner No. 3 in short 'd-4' ). Admittedly, the first-ever partnership was constituted through a partnership deed in 1968 wherein D-l and D-3 only were the partners. In 1978 another partnership deed was made wherein D-4 was also added as one of the partners. There was a third partnership deed in which D-l was dropped as a partner, D-2 was intro duced as a partner together with D-3 and D-4. The suit as aforesaid was filed in 1986. Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short, Act No. 13 of 1972) indicates the cases in which a vacation would be deemed to have been caused in respect of building. Sub-S. (1) (b) states that a landlord or a tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the build ing or a part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. Sub-S. (2) states that in case of non-residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.;