Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- Whether the appellant herein and his father had sublet the premises in question in or about 1960 in terms of S. 13(l)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Rent Act) is the question involved in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 21st of August, 1979.

2. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to decide the scope and ambit of S. 29(2) of the Rent Act. To decide this, facts must be referred to.

3. The appellant claimed to be the tenant in respect of the two premises which are quite adjacent to each other, one of which is involved in this appeal. The respondent is the landlord of the two premises and these were situated at Raikhad Ward, Ahmedabad. The respondent had alleged in the two suits that the appellant was his tenant in the suit premises which were leased out to him and before him his father, for conducting the business in the name of Ahmedabad Fine and Weaving Works and according to the terms of tenancy suit premises were leased for manufacturing cloth in the name of Ahmedabad Fine and Weaving Works. The respondent had further alleged that the appellant No. 1 had closed the business and lie was not using the said premises for the purpose for which it was let to him. It was the ease of the appellant that in respect of the suit premises he was carrying on his business with respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in the name of respondent No. 2 M/s. Bharat Neon Signs (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2).

4. We are concerned in this appeal with only one of the premises which was involved in Suit No. 553 of 1969. It is not in dispute and it never was that the premises was being. used by Bharat Neon Signs firm being the defendant No. 2 in the original suit. At the time of the institution of the suit the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were admittedly the partners. The present appellant who was the original defendant No. 1 claimed to be a partner. The main controversy was whether the appellant had sublet the premises to defendant No. 2 Bharat Neon Signs or whether lie being a partner of the said firm had permitted the said firm to use the premises in question. It is clear from the evidence on record that the partnership firm had undergone metamorphosis from time to time and again ever since the year 1960. The firm Bharat Neon Signs first originated on 4th of October, 1960. As many as six persons were named in the partnership firm, on or about 4th of October, 1960 and they had executed a deed of partnership on 13th of October, 1960 which is Exhibit-114 on the record. The said partnership deed records six persons who Were to run the business in manufacturing and selling Bharat Neon Signs tubes. However, the document is silent as to where the business was started. On or about 24th of October, 1960 another partnership deed being Exhibit 69 came to be executed among the six persons and the father of the appellant Girdharlal. The document is Exhibit-69 and is signed by the father of the appellant and the appellant himself also. It may be mentioned that the partnership deed Exhibit-114 was executed by six persons and at that stage the appellant or his father were not partners in the firm. But thereafter when the partnership deed Exhibit-69 was executed the appellant and his father joined the firm with an agreement to share profits only and their share was fixed at 0.03 paise in a rupee. There is a third partnership deed Exhibit-70 which showed that the deceased-tenant Girdharlal had died on 1st of February, 1961 and so by the remaining seven partners with same terms and conditions, a new partnership deed being Exhibit-70 was executed on 22nd September, 1961. At this time the share of the appellant was fixed at 0.03 paise in a rupee to share the profits only. In 1965 some partners retired and the remaining four partners executed a fresh partnership deed Exhibit-117 on 1st April, 1965. This las