JUDGMENT

1. The appellant in these appeals by special leave is the landlord who filed a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant from the premises in question. The tenancy was created in favour of the respondent firm which consisted of four partners.

2. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the ground that the defendant had sub - let, assigned and/or transferred possession of the said premises and/or part thereof to Dhillon Transport Quick Service and Dhillon Roadways Corporation and others without consent in writing of the plaintiff landlord. In its written statement the tenant denied the allegation of sub - tenancy and submitted that Mis Dhillon Transport Agency, a partnership firm was originally the tenant. The partnership had four partners who carried on business in the name and style of Dhillon Transport Agency. Since disputes and differences arose amongst the partners, Title Suit No. 19 of 199 I was filed in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge at Patna and all matters were settled by compromise. Consequently, the firm was dissolved and one of the partners was given all the assets of the firm and he formed another firm with himself as one of the partners. It was averred that unless the tenancy was transferred by such partner to a third party, it would not amount to subletting. The defendant therefore asserted that there was no sub - letting since one of the partners, Ajit Singh continued to occupy the premises having legal possession thereof.

3. In his deposition PW 1, Ajit Singh deposed that the tenancy was originally created in favour of the firm of which he was one of the partners. The firm was running a transport agency business in the suit premises and had never inducted any sub - tenant in the suit premises. In his cross - examination it was elicited that the partnership firm originally consisting of four partners existed for about 35 to 40 years. He denied the suggestion that he was not looking after the affairs of the defendant and that it inducted other persons and/or firm for carrying on business in the suit premises by the name of Dhillon Quick Transport Service or Dhillon Roadways Corporation. He asserted that he looks after the affairs of the partnership firm which is carrying on business in the premises of which he is a partner.

4. It appears that along with his written submission, the plaintiff filed certain documents which were not exhibited at the trial to prove sub - letting. In our view those documents cannot be looked into since they were not put in evidence and the defendant had no opportunity of replying to those documents.

S. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction but its judgment and order has been set aside by the High Court. The High Court after appreciating the evidence on record has found that since one of the partners of the original tenant namely, the firm Dhillon Transport Agency, is still running his transport agency business in the same premises, it cannot be held that a sub - tenancy has been created. The High Court, therefore, held that the appellant had failed to prove sub - letting of premises by the respondent.

6. In the special leave petition filed by the appellants, two questions of a law have been formulated which read as follows:

"(a) If it is an admitted fact that the firm (with four partners) in favour of which lease/tenancy was granted was dissolved, as a result whereof the three resigning partners devolved and/or transferred and/or assigned their interest in the tenancy/lease rights in favour of one of the partner who continued as owner of the firm, whether such an b assignment/devolution/transfer of the lease rights without obtaining the consent of the landlord ipso facto amounts to sub - letting by the resigning partners?

(b) If dissolution of the partnership firm and devolution and/or transfer and/or assignment of the same by the resigning partners in favour of the surviving partner is an admitted fact, whether any further C evidence is required to be sub