Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The learned trial Judge cam to this conclusion that subletting to Ramesh Gundali, Kalyan and others persons is not proved at all and evidence in this regard cannot be relied upon in absence of specific pleadings. With regard to subletting to Dinesh, it was observed that he is carrying on business of STD/PCO in partnership of the appellant-tenant in a portion of the suit shop and this it does not amount to subletting. In Amir Ahmed v. Yusuf (22), it was held by Hon'ble D.B. of this Court that merely allowing another person to use premises or its part and conversion of exclusive possession of premises by a tenant into joint possession with a third person does not constitute parting with possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. Similar view was taken in Dev Kumar (died) through LRs. v. Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors. (23). In Smt. Laxmi alias Anandi and Ors. v. C. Setharama Nagarkar and Ors. (24), it was held that the landlord should prove as to when sub-tenancy was created and in absence of that, eviction on such ground cannot be ordered. In Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi (25), it was held that mere presence of persons other than the tenant in shop is no ground to presume subletting. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-land lord contended that the plaintiff-landlord and his witnesses were not cross-examination on this point; that evidence cannot be discarded merely in absence of specific pleadings; that High Court in revision allowed the parties to lead evidence on this point; that subletting and parting with the possession of the part of the shop to Dinesh Parwani was well proved and the factum of partnership between Dinesh Parwani and the appellant-tenant could not be taken to be proved merely on the basis of partnership deed as it was after-thought document and the appellant-tenant did not produce any account of the partnership; that as per telephone rules, business of STD-PCO is not permissible in partnership. He placed reliance upon M/s. Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (26), Hari Singh v. Kannaiya Lal (27), Roop Chand v. Gopi Chand Thelia (28), Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali Fatehali (D) by LRs. (29), Virendra Kashinath Ravat and Anr. v. Vinayak N.Joshi and Ors. (30), Janak Raj Ahuja v. Navneet Sehgal (31) and Harbhajan Singh v. Jai Shree Kishan (32). In M/s. Bharat Sales Ltd's case (supra), it was held that in case of subletting it is difficult for landlord to prove it by direct evidence or whether sub-tenant had paid monetary consideration and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case. In Hari Singh's case (supra), it was held that details of subletting can be supplemented through evidence and mere lack of details in pleadings cannot Ute a reason to set aside concurrent findings of the fact. In Roop Chand's case (supra), it was held that when the larger part of the premises was let out to a club registered under Companies Act while tenant retains possession of the smaller part of the premises, it would amount that the tenant parted with the possession and is liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. In Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai's case (supra), the tenant entered into partnership with his four sons in 1955. Thereafter, the tenant and his two sons retired from the partnership in 1974 when new partnership came between other two sons. It was held that original tenant having no concern with premises or business therein, it was a case of subletting. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat and another's case (supra), court below arrived at concurrent finding of subletting on account of amended version of the plaint stating that pending the suit the defendants have or any of them has inducted defendants No. 1 to 5 unlawfully. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that High Court erred in overturning conclusions of two fact finding courts on the ground that averments regarding subletting was insufficient. In Janak Raj Ahuja's case (supra) the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that through the partnership deed was produced by the tenant but account books and income tax returns were not produced, it was held that partnership was merely camouflage and it was a case of subletting. Similar view was taken in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra). It was further observed that moreover, as per rules of Telegraph Department, there can be no partnership with respect to STD/PCO.

16. 1 have considered the rival submission in the light of the judgments, judgment of the trial court and evidence available on the record. The plaintiff-landlord in his statement tried to support the averments made in the plaint, while the appellant-tenant stated that he never let out any portion of the shop to anyone and he never parted with possession of any part of the shop. According to his statement, the persons named by the plaintiff namely Thakur, Mohan Lal, Suresh were his salary paid workers. He further deposed that Ramesh Gundali and Sh. Kalayan were his customers and one Pandey was a typist and another typist Ramesh Ajmers is no doing his typing job in a separate shop. He also explained photos showing the presence of these persons produced by the plaintiff. He admitted in his statement that Dinesh Parwani is doing STD PCO job in the suit sbop but with him as partner and the partnership deed is Ex. A22 and it was executed in January, 1995. He explained that on account of excess work and marketing competition he had to enter into partnership with Dinesh parwani. It was also stated by him that there entire shop is in his possession, although the STD-PCO is in the name of Dinesh Parwani. It was also stated by him that he is an partner of 63% while Dinesh Parwani is a partner of 37%. He has also proved income-tax returns of this partnership firm which are Ex. A23 to Ex. A 32 for the assessment years 1995 to 2000. D.W. 2 Punit Kakkar, D.W. 3 Himmat Tanwani, D.W, 4 Dr. B.L. Asawa, D.W. 5 Montu Bhartiya and D.W. 5 Dinesh Parwani which corroborating the statement of the appellant-tenant categorically stated before the trial court that the suit shop is in possession of the tenant Jagdish and is run by him. D.W. 5 Sh. dinesh Parwani categorically stated before the trial court that the connection of STD-PCO was issued in his name as he was an educated unemployed person and allotment of STD-PCO under rules is permissible to only educated unemployed person and any portion was never sub-let to him and he never paid any rent to the tenant Jagdish. I agree with this submission made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord that the details of sub-let can be supplemented through evidence and mere lack of details in pleadings cannot,, be a reason to discard the evidence. I also agree with this submission also that in case of subletting it is difficult for the landlord to prove it by direct evidence or to prove that sub-tenant had paid any rent and the Court may draw its own inference upon the facts of the case. But in the instant case, the trial Judge decided this issue against the plaintiff- landlord not only on account of lack of details in pleadings but also on the ground that there is no such evidence to prove subletting. As a matter of fact, the pleadings of subletting are quite vague and incomplete and even by the evidence the plaintiff-landlord failed to supplement the plaintiff-landlord that the tenant from time to time allowed a number of persons as sub-tenants and in amended plaint certain persons were named as sub-tenants but on evidence the plaintiff-landlord failed to prove subletting to any of them. On the oilier hand explanation given by the appellant-tenant corroborated by other witnesses was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge. As far as the case of Dinesh Parwani is concerned, it was admitted by the appellant-tenant that STD-PCO connection is in the name of Dinesh Parwani which is going on the suit shop. On perusal of the entire evidence available on the record, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that this STD-PCO business is being carried out in the partnership of the appellant-tenant and Dinesh Parwani appears to be sound. A perusal of deed of partnership Ex.A22 executed on 19.1.1995 along with income-tax returns for the assessment years 1995 to 2000 and the oral evidence adduced by the appellant-tenant go to show that this document Ex. A 22 is not after though document, rather it was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge. According to this deed of partnership, Sh. Dinesh Parwani invested a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs in this business as part of the capital and further shares of the appellant-tenant and Dinesh Parwani are respectively 63% and 37%. Therefore, merely on account of non-filing account books is not ground to say that this document of deed of partnership is not genuine one further no such conclusion can be drawn on the basis of Telegraph Department Rules that partnership with respect to STD-PCO is barred, although the relevant rules provide that only educated unemployed persons are eligible for allotment of STD- PCO. In view of Amir Ahmed's case (supra), merely allowing another person to carry on business in partnership does not constitute parting with possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the decision of this issue does not call for any interference by this Court.