Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord's revision to get eviction of the tenant. Firm Badri Dass -Radhe -lal was a joint Hindu Family firm and some time after 1943 was converted into a contractual partnership consisting of' Radhelal and his Sons. The premises in dispute were taken by Radhe Lal but the rent was paid by and in the name of Badri Dass Radhe Lal and the trial Court has held that this firm Badri Dass -Radhe Lal, must be taken to be the tenants of the landlord, a finding with which I agree. Some time later Mangal Sen is alleged to have become a partner with Firm Badri Dass -Radhe Lal and a partnership in the name of Radhe Lal and Sons was then started. This firm is alleged to have dissolved in 1943 and since then Mangal Sen has been carrying on business in the premises in dispute under the name of Lahori Mal -Mir Singh. It may be taken to be proved that up to the year 1943 rent was paid by Firm Badri Dass Radhe Lal and after the alleged dissolution of partnership upto, 4 -4 -1945, the rent was continued to be paid in the name of Firm Badri Dass -Radhe Lal though Mangal Sen claims that he was actually paying the money, a fact which is denied by the landlord Ram Nath.
(2.) ON 1 -9 -1946, the landlord gave notice under Section 9, Delhi and Ajmer -Merwara Rent Control Act to the tenants for eviction on three grounds, namely (1) that they had sublet the premises without the consent of the and lord, (2) that tho premises' were being used for a purpose other than that they were let and (3) that they the tenants were not ready and -willing to pay the rent. The suit was decreed by Mr. Kirpa Ram, subordinate Judge 1st class, but the decree was reversed on appeal by Mr. Tek Chand Vijh, senior subordinate Judge. It is against this decree that a revision has been brought to this Court. By way of preliminary objection Mr. Puri submitted that the revision is not properly stamped. This is a revision not under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Punjab Courts. Act but under the Rules made by this Court under the Rule making power conferred by Section 14(2) of the Act and therefore, Article 13 of Schedule 1 Court Fees Act as applicable to this High Court does not apply. In my opinion, the memo, of revision has been correctly stamped with a stamp of Rs. 4/ - and 1, therefore, overrule this objection.
(3.) THE first point to be determined is whether there has been a contravention of Section 9(l)(b)(ii) which provides for eviction. It runs as follows: 9(1)(b) that the tenant without the consent of the landlord, has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act,.... (ii) assigned, sublet, or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole of the premises or The allegation of the Plaintiff is that there has been a subletting by Radhe Lal or Firm Badri Dass : Radhe Lal to Mangal Sen who is working under the name of Lahori Mal Singh Defendants. 2 and 3 plead that they - Radhe Lal and Mangal Sen -were carrying on business under the name and style of Badri Dass -Radhe Lal and the business was of manufacture of thread balls which was being carried on in the premises in dispute and on dissolution the assets of the firm having come to Mangal Sen's share he is entitled to carry on business in these premises and this does not amount to subletting or assignment or parting with possession. The evidence shows that the original letting was to Firm Badri Dass -Radhe Lal of which the sole partner was Radhe Lal. The landlord has always been receiving rent from Badri Das -Radhe Lal and has been giving receipts in that name. Badri Dass -Radhe Lal was a joint Hindu family firm. No account books have been produced showing that Mangal Sen was at any time a partner with Firm Badri Dass -Radhe Lal or even in Firm Radhe Lal and Sons. The Defendant , relies on Ex.D. 36 which is a certified copy of the Income Tax assessment order and therein it is mentioned that there was a dissolution but this order relates to Firm. Radhe Lal and Sons. It may be that Radhe Lal and Sons were a contractual firm consisting of Firm Badri Dass -Radhe Lal and Mangal Sen but there is no proof that Firm Radhe Lal and Sons was carrying on its business in the premises in dispute nor have any accounts been produced to show that Radhe Lal and Sons did have Mangal Sen as their partner.;