Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against a judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi allowing the appeal of the tenants in regard to the decree of eviction passed against them by Mr. Chander Gupta Suri, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated the 21st of May, 1949.
(2.) HIRA Lal, the Petitioner before me is the landlord and the Respondents, Gian Singh and Company and others, are the tenants. On the 13th of September, 1943, Shiam Bihari Defendant No. 2 who was one of the partners of the firm, Mange Lal Ramesh Chandra, executed a rent not in regard to shop No. 2038 situate in Cloth Market, Delhi. The total monthly rent was Rs. 48/14/ - and there was a stipulation not to assign. On the 27th of November, 1947, the landlord, Hira Lal, gave notice for eviction on the grounds that the rent was in arrears, that the tenants had assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole of the premises and that he 'bona fide' needed the premises for his own use. On the 20th of January, 1948, a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 348/8/ - from the 22nd of June, 1947 to the 14th of January, 1948, was brought on the grounds, (a) that rent had not been paid, (b) that the premises had been assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with and (c) that the presses were 'bona fide' required for the personal requirements of the landlord. In reply the tenants denied these allegations. They pleaded that there was no parting with possession but the same partnership was carrying on business in the premises and that Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were now partners in the firm. A separate written statement on behalf of Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of which was practically the same as of Gian Singh and Company, was filed. When the Defendants appeared for the first time on the 18th of February, 1948, Mr. Bishan Parshad represented Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Harbans Singh Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6. The Defendants applied for adjournment as their written statements were not ready and they were allowed to file the same on the 23rd of March, 1948. No money was deposited, nor was an offer of deposit made on the 18th of February, 1948. On the 21st of February, 1948, the Defendants applied for being allowing to deposit the arrears of rent in Court. They actuary made the deposit on "the 3rd of March. 1948, and on the 23rd of March, 1948, the written statement was filed. The trial Court decreed the suit and held that Shiam Binari was a partner, that the partnership between the Defendants had not been proved and that they were not partners and it was a case of surrender of possession, that the arrears of rent were deposited in time and that the shop was not required for the personal use of the Plaintiff.
(3.) ON the 28th of May, 1949, Gian Singh and Company filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge , and on the 21st of March, 1950, the Respondent Hira Lal made an application under Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for additional evidence which consisted, (1) of the written statement of Gian Singh and other Defendants dated the 13th of January, 1950, in another suit, in which they denied the partnership which has been set up by them in the present suit and (3) the statement of Gian Singh (in the same suit) before issues of the same date. On the 16th of May, 1950, the Appellants filed an application in reply to the application of the Plaintiff for additional evidence, and as far as I have been able to see the record, no order was passed on this application by the Senior Subordinate Judge. On the 27th of June, 1950, the Senior Subordinate Judge, in a somewhat involved judgment, held that no parting with possession had been proved as Gian Singh and Co. had become partners in the firm, that it had been proved by Defendants Nos. 2 to 1 that there was a partnership between them and Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in the firm and even if the partnership was not proved the parting with or surrender of possession had not been proved. Although the point seems to have been present to his mind, the Senior Subordinate Judge gave no finding on the point as to whether the arrears of rent were paid as required by Section 9(I)(a) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control Act.;