PATEL VALMIK HIMATLAL Vs. PATEL MOHANLAL MULJIBHAI DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-landlord filed a suit for recovery of a shop situate at Lati Bazar in city of Bhavnagar which had been let out to the tenant-respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 111/- for the specific purpose of running timber business. Various grounds were taken in the suit for eviction but for the purposes of the present appeal by special leave we are concerned only with the ground of sub-letting.

(2.) The case of the appellant-plaintiff in the plaint was that the tenant-defendants were not authorised to sublet, transfer or assign or permit anybody else to make use of the suit property or a part thereof without the consent of the landlord. It was asserted that the tenant-defendants closed down their business of timber and thereafter sublet the premises to Patel Transport Company without consent of the landlord. A public declaration had been made through a newspaper regarding the starting of the business of Patel Transport Company from the demised premises. The suit was contested and in so far as the question of sub-letting is concerned, the tenant-defendants maintained that there was no sub-letting in favour of Patel Transport Company and that in fact the tenant had entered into a partnership with Patel Transport Company for running business in the suit premises. The trial Court after framing of issues and recording evidence came to the conclusion that sub-letting of the suit premises by the tenant to Patel Transport Company was established and consequently decreed the suit of the landlord. The tenant filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar. Vide order dated 16th April, 1981 the appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court confirmed. The tenant preferred a civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-landlord. By special leave, the appellant-landlord is before us.

(3.) We have perused the record and heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent despite service has chosen to remain absent.