Honble KOTHARI, J.—This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the concurrent eviction decree of two courts below on the ground of subletting by the defendants-tenant. The substantial question of law involved in this case is :

“Whether after the dissolution of the firm M/s Dal Chand Vishveshwar Das, there is sub-letting to M/s Chand Ratan Shyam Sunder when the two partners of the original firm are the partners of the M/s Chand Ratan Shyam Sunder?”

2. The first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 28/4/1994 upheld the decree of the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 6/8/1993 by which the suit no.24/74 was decreed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff Smt. Pana Devi w/o Shri Vishwanath and Smt. Durga Devi wd/o Bheru Baksh Vyas, both are daughters of Battu Bai, who owned the suit premises `Bara (ground) situated in Bikaner, which was let out to the defendant no.1 – Rameshwar Lal son of Ganesh Das for carrying on the business of coal by the Firm M/sDal Chand Vishveshwar Das (`DCVD for short) on 13/7/1966 for a monthly rent of Rs.210/-. The suit property was sold by said Smt. Battu Bai to the present plaintiffs Smt. Pana Devi and Smt. Durga Devi on 20/9/1969 and present plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default, subletting and other grounds. However, since the eviction decree was finally passed on the ground of subletting only and the substantial question of law as indicated above has been framed only on this ground, this second appeal is to be decided with reference to the above substantial question of law only. The issue no.3 pertaining to subletting as framed by the learned trial court in this case was as under:

“Whether the defendant no.1 has parted with the possession of a portion of suit premises in favour of defendant no.3 for its business?”

^^¼3½ D;k izfroknh ua- 1 us fdjk;s ds ifjlj dk dqN vak izfroknh ua- 3 dks dkjksckj djus ds fy, ikVZfon fd;k gS\**

3. The defendant no.3 M/s Chand Ratan Shyam Sunder (`CRSS in short) also carried on the business of a coal merchant in the suit premises and the present plaintiffs filed a suit in question on 16/8/1974 inter alia on the ground that the defendant no.1 – Rameshwar Lal, who was original tenant for carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s DCVD, as aforesaid, has parted with the possession of the suit premises in favour of defendant no.3 M/s CRSS. Since the arguments of learned counsels for both the sides have centered round this issue only, which has already been reproduced above, it is also considered appropriate to reproduce the pleadings of the parties in this regard. Para no.4 (ka) of the plaint reads as under:-

^^4- ¼d½ ;g fd izfroknh ua- 1 us izfroknh ua- 2 ds fgLlsnkj dh gSfl;r ls izfroknh ua- 2 ds fy;s ckM+k ¼edku½ fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA izfroknh us bl ckM+s ¼edku½ esa izfroknh ua- 3 dks dkjkscj djus ds fy;s bldk tqt ns fn;k vkSj bl izdkj izfroknh ua- 3 dks ckM+k ¼edku½ dk dCtk ikVZfoFk dj fn;k gS blfy;s oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls ckM+k ¼edku½ [kkyh djkus ds vf/kdkjh gSA**

Para 4 of the written statement of the defendants reads as under:

^^4- ;g fd vthZnkok dk en ua- 4 cotg xyr c;kuh rlyhe ughaA eqnb;ku izfroknh ls tehu eqruktk [kkyh djkus ds gdnkj ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izfroknh ua- 1 us izfroknh ua- 3 dks ckM+s dk dCtk ns fn;kA okLro esa fdjk;k izfroknh ua- 3 dh rjQls gh fn;k tkrk jgk gSA ;g dguk mfpr ugha fd izfroknhx.k fMQkWYVj gks x;s gSA izfroknhx.k cjkcj fdjk;k tek djk jgs gS vkSj igys Hkh mUgksaus fdjk;k nsus ls dHkh bUdkj ugha fd;kA ;gka rd fd muds }kjk Vs.Mj fd;s x;s fdjk;s dks Hkh ugha fy;k x;kA ;g dguk fd oknh ua- 1 dk ifr E;wfuLiyVh ls vodkk xzg.k izkIr dj pqdk gSA blfy;s dks;ys dk /kU/kk djsxk dguk vlR; gSA ftl k[l us mej Hkj ukSdjh dh vkSj og o`)koLFkk esa dksbZ u;k dkjksckj dj ys ;g loFkkZ ekStwnk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vlR; gSA izfroknh ua- 1 dk ifr kjhj ls cqM+k gS vkSj chekj Hkh jgrk gSA vlh izdkj izfroknh ua- 2 dk ifr geskk dh rjg usrkfxjh djrs gS vkSj u rks vkt rd /kU/kk fd;k vkSj u dHkh djsaxsA nksuksa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document