( 1 ) WILL a tenant who takes in a partner in a business run by him in rented premises incur the liability of being evicted on the ground that he has sublet or assigned his interest in the tenancy in favour of the partnership ? It is this question which requires to be resolved in the present second appeal under sec. 28 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 by the plaintiff landlord who has failed in both the lower Courts. The Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 will be referred to as the Rent Act in the course of this judgment.

( 2 ) THE appellant-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 68 of 1958 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Morvi claiming a decree for eviction under sec 13 (1) (e) of Rent Act which is in the following terms against the respondents-defendants :-13 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied (e) that the tenant has since the coming into operation of this Act sub-let the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein; or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The trial Court came to the conclusion that merely because the tenant entered into a partnership and took in a partner it cannot be said that he had transferred or assigned his interest in the tenancy in favour of the partnership firm The lower appellate Court endorsed this view. Thereupon the landlord has approached this Court by way of the present second appeal.

( 3 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The tenant was carrying on business in the demised premises (hereafter referred to as the suit shop) on his own as a sole proportion of the business. In October 1957 the tenant took in defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 as his partners. From then onwards the tenant along with his aforesaid two partners carried on business in the suit shop for the benefit of the partnership. The partnership deed executed between the tenant and his two partners (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) in terms made it clear that the tenancy rights continued to vest unto the tenant (defendant No. 1) and that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who were joining him as partners were not to acquire any interest in the tenancy rights belonging to him. On these facts the question has been debated whether or not a subletting or assignment of the suit shop in contravention of sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Rent Act has taken place in October 1957.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the landlord poses two key questions and answers them. Who was doing business in the suit shop and who was in possession till 1957 ? (the tenant-defendant No. 1) Who is doing business in the suit shop and who is in possession since 1957? (the partnership formed by the tenant with the two defendants ). It is argued that the answers to the aforesaid two questions impel one to the conclusion that there has been either sub-letting or assignment notwithstanding the stipulation in the partnership deed that the tenancy interest will continue to remain vested unto the defendant No. 1-tenant. The argument in my judgment is misconceived and fallacious. It is a well-recognised proposition that a partnership is not a legal person or a corporation sole or corporation aggregate having a distinct legal personality of its own. That a partnership is a compendious mode of describing the partners collectively is equally well-known. The submission that a partnership firm is a distinct legal entity and that the firm is now in possession of the suit shop and is doing business thereat whereas the defendant No. 1 was doing so hither to cannot therefore be countenanced The two and actual possession of the shop No. 4 and godown No. 4 which are in my possession by taking execution proceedings. And in that case 1 the defendant am to hand over the actual vacant possession of the shop No. 4 and godown No. 4 which are in my possession. 13 The questions which naturally arise from the decree of this type