Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a landlord's suit for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting. The appellant-landlord alleged that the tenant had parted with possession of the premises by putting another firm in exclusive possession through a common partner who was not a real partner in that firm. The trial court accepted this contention and decreed the suit. The tenant appealed to a Bench of the Small Cause Court, which re-appreciated the evidence, reversed the trial court's reasoning and conclusions, and dismissed the suit. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction upheld the appellate court's findings. The landlord then appealed to the Supreme Court. The High Court, affirming the appellate court, reasoned that assessment orders for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, return forms filed before the suit, and municipal licences of 1964, whose application was made before the suit, were not manipulated or afterthoughts. These documents were relevant and germane to the controversy. The tenant firm, dealing in paints and colours, produced 39 import licences from 1962 to 1971 bearing the suit premises address, correspondence received at the suit premises from 1962 onwards, foreign firm correspondence, and extracts from account books. The High Court held that the cumulative effect of this documentary and oral evidence established that Mohsinbhai was a common partner of both firms, that the tenant firm's business was carried out from the suit premises, and that the tenancy of the tenant firm was never terminated expressly or by implication. The partnership which came into existence on 30 September 1960 included Mohsin as a partner; the suit premises were never treated as assets of the tenant firm; Mohsin acted for and on behalf of the tenant firm; and Lalbhai, a partner of the second defendant, managed its business on behalf of all partners including Mohsinbhai. In substance, the tenant firm remained in possession throughout and never parted with exclusive possession. The Supreme Court heard learned counsel for the parties and found no ground to interfere with the findings reached by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court. It agreed with the reasoning and conclusions, holding that no sub-letting or parting with exclusive possession was established. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Law - Sub-letting - Exclusive Possession - Not mentioned - Landlord sought eviction on ground of sub-letting alleging tenant parted with possession by putting common partner in exclusive possession; trial court decreed suit but appellate court reversed finding that common partner was real partner of both firms and tenant firm remained in possession; High Court and Supreme Court upheld appellate court - Held that no parting with possession occurs when common partner continues in possession and business of tenant firm is carried out from suit premises (Paras 1-3) B) Evidence - Documentary Evidence - Pre-suit Documents - Not mentioned - Assessment orders for 1962-64, municipal licences of 1964, import licences 1962-71 and correspondence showing suit premises address were held relevant and germane to decide sub-letting; court held these pre-suit documents could not be lightly brushed aside and supported finding of continued possession by tenant firm (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant had sublet or parted with possession of the suit premises to another firm, thereby incurring liability for eviction; and whether pre-suit documentary evidence such as assessment orders, municipal licences and import licences was relevant to determine the sub-letting controversy.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no costs. Supreme Court agreed with High Court reasoning that tenant firm remained in possession through common partner and no sub-letting or parting with exclusive possession was established.
Law Points
- Sub-letting requires parting with exclusive possession
- burden on landlord to prove sub-letting
- common partner continuing possession and business from suit premises negates sub-letting
- pre-suit assessment orders and licences are relevant evidence
- no termination of tenancy required for possession
