The dissolution of a partnership firm and the assignment of the shares of two of the partners in favor of the remaining partners of the firm who start a new partnership firm does not lead to the conclusion that the original firm "ceased to occupy" the premises in question, and there is no sub-letting or assignment of the premises contrary to the provisions of the Act, as four partners were common to both the old and new firms.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision raises two questions of law viz. , as to whether the dissolution of a partnership firm and the assignment of the shares of two of the partners in favour of the remaining partners of the firm who start new partnership firm can lead to the conclusion that the original firm "ceased to occupy" the premises in question and whether there is conseqantial sub-letting by the original firm to the new firm.

( 2 ) THIS revision is filed by respondents 3 to 6 in the eviction petition against the landlord. For the purpose of convenience I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the main Rent Control Petition before the Rent Controller.

( 3 ) THE Respondents 1 and 2 in the eviction petition are brothers and were partners along with respondent 3 as also his sons respondents 4,5 and 6 and were doing cloth business by name "alladi Mallaiah Cloth merchants". Respondents 1 and 2 belong to Alladi family while respondents 3 to 6 belong to the Gunda family and the parties are vysyas. There is some evidence about the ancestors of tae Alladi and Gunda family having originally taken this non-residential premises in question on lease but it is sufficient to state that the recitals in Ex. B-1 to which I shall presently refer, show that there was a partnership deed dated 10-7-75 which stated that respondents 1 and 2 as well as respondents 3 to 6 were partners of a firm by name Alladi Mallaiah Cloth Merchants at Warangal.

( 4 ) THE eviction petition was filed on three grounds. The first ground was that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent, that the land lord required the premises bonafide for his personal business and that the tenants ceased to occupy the premises for a period of four months.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the landlord the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from February 1978. , the landlord required the premises for business in Gunny bags and the tenants have ceased to occupy the premises for a period of six months before the eviction petition was filed in as much as the respondents have closed the business and sold away the stock in trade with a view to wind up the business and the shop was closed

( 6 ) THE trial Court as well the Lower Appellate Court have rejected the landlord s contention that the tenants committed wilful default in the payment of rent,. This is no longer canvassed. Both the Courts held that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his business. On the third ground they held that respondents 1 to 4 herein (i. e. , respondents 3 to 6 in the rent control petition) constituted a new firm with effect from 12-10-1978 and that it was distinct from the old firm and that consequently thee old firm ceased to occupy the premises. In fact the appellate court also held that the occupation by the new firm amounted to sub-letting of the premises. It is against these orders that the respondent 3 to 6 have perfcrred the present revision.

( 7 ) I shall now refer to the subsequent events which took place after the filing of the eviction petition. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner (respondent in this CRP) on 18-8-1978 The landlord got a Commissioner appointed for the purpose of finding out whether the respondents were using the premises or not. On that the Commissioner appointed in I. A. No, 1657/78 visited the premises on 22-8-1978 and filed a report into Court along with a panchanama. He stated in his report that respondent No. 2 opened the door of the premises, that he along with those present entered the shop and observed :"that there are no stocks in the shop. Everything was disposed. Only empty furniture was present. The Panchanama was also conducted to that extent which is enclosed herewith. To the observation of the Commissioner the cloth shop in the premises bearing House No, 12/666 situated at Ramannapet, warangal was closed and the stock in trade was sold out. "the panchanama annexed to the report which is signed by the Commissio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document