RAM SARUP Vs. BRAHMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) has arisen out of an order dated 15.2.1991 passed by Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has upheld the order of eviction dated 18th March, 1986 passed by I.C. Tiwari, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi against the appellant/tenant under clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) The only question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant-tenant Ram Sarup has sub-let, assigned of parted with the possession of the premises in favour of Amrit Lal in 1971 without obtaining the consent in writing of the respondents and as such he is liable to be evicted under clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, has very effectively and neatly put up his case and submitted (i) that the Additional Rent Controller has found as a matter of fact that the PartnKership Deed entered into between Ram Sarup and Amrit Lal (Ext.RW 1/1) is not forged or fabricated and according to him, once it is beld not to be forged or fabcated then clause 4 of the Partnership Deed clearly provides that on the dissolution of the partnership, the tenancy right in the said premises shall remain with Ram Sarup and Amrit Lal will have no right, title or interest in the tenancy right which will be the sole property of Ram Sarup. In other words, the tenancy rights have not been transferred to Amrit Lal by Ram Sarup while entering into the partnership agreement for the purpose of carrying on business in the shop. (ii) that the reasoning given and the inferences drawn by the courts below that some clauses of partnership deed, particularly clause 14 that the firm shall open its bank account which shall be operated by Amrit Lal only, is indicative of the fact that Amrit Lal was only to carry on the business in the tenanted premises, is perverse as this clause cannot lead inevitably to the inference that respondent No. 2 was only intended to carry on business in the tenanted premises to the exclusion of Ram Sarup, Reference was made to Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, according to which the business of the partnership can be carried on by all or any of them acting for all and, therefore, Amrit Lal was within his right under the Partnership Act to carry on the business on behalf of Ram Sarup. (iii) that a 'perusal of various clauses of Partnership Deed, on the other hand, makes it clear rather establishes that by the Partnership Deed Ext. RW 1/1 Amrit Lal was only inducted as a partner to carry on the business of partnership in the shop along with Ram Sarup, (iv) that the finding of the Tribunal that there was no genuine partnership and the partnership was only a camouflage for concealing the real nature of transaction, is perverse and without any evidence and no reasonable man can reach to such a conclusion on the basis of evidence led by the parties. According to the learned counsel, the present appeal, therefore, does raise substantial question of law and is a fit case where the impugned order should be interfered with by this Court