The court emphasized that a partnership deed, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act, cannot be considered a camouflage for subletting. The court also clarified that a firm is not a separate legal entity and the occupation by a firm is the occupation by its partners.

1. These two revision petitions were directed against the order made by the District Judge, Kozhikode in R. C. R. P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1980. The petitioners in these revision petitions are partners of a partnership firm which carries on business in steel in the name of "Steel Link." They claimed to be the tenants of the premises in dispute. The respondent is admittedly the owner and landlord of the said premises. He sought eviction of the petitioners on several grounds. The order under revision made by the District Judge of Kozhikode shows that the landlord has been given an order of eviction in his favour on the ground of subletting as also on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his personal occupation. We are therefore required to examine the contentions of the parties only in regard to the case of subletting and the case of bona fide requirement. The landlord can secure eviction of the tenant under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground that the tenant has after the commencement of the Act, without the consent of the landlord, transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any fight to do so. The landlord is entitled to secure eviction when he needs the premises bonafide for his personal occupation under sub-s.(3) of S.11 of the Act. Even if the landlord establishes that his requirement is bona fide, he will not be able to secure an order of eviction if as directed in the second proviso it is proved that the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.

2. it is not disputed that the premises was originally leased to a partnership firm consisting of 4 partners known as "Messrs. Haji P. Mammu." One of the partners having died, the remaining three partners who were his sons have carried on the business which the partnership firm was carrying on before the death of their father, On the 1st of May, 1978 a new partnership was brought into existence under the partnership deed executed on that day between the partners of the original firm who were the lessees and petitioners 2 to 8. The case of the respondent is that the said partnership deed Ext. BI is only a camouflage and what has really been done by the erstwhile tenants is to sublease the premises in favour of petitioners 2 to 8. It is on the basis of these averments that eviction is claimed on the ground of subletting. As already stated, it is also the case of the landlord that he required the premises bona fide for starting a textile business on his own in the premises. The learned District Judge has recorded a finding to the effect that the premises has been sublet in favour of petitioners 2 to 8 by the original tenants holding that the partnership deed Ext. BI is not a genuine transaction of partnership but is a camouflage for subletting the premises in favour of petitioners 2 to 8.

3. The first contention of Sri. P. N. K. Achan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the finding of the learned District Judge that there is subletting of the premises on the ground that the partnership deed Ext.B1 is only a camouflage for sublease is not in accordance with law. He submitted that the finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge without considering all the clauses of Ext.B1 and the statutory provisions contained in the Partnership Act. The inference of camouflage has been drawn by the learned District Judge only taking into consideration of some of the recitals in the deed of partnership Ext.Bl and not on the basis of any other extraneous evidence produced by the parties. The learned District Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the entire capital of Rs. 70,000/- has been contributed only by petit