The tenancy taken by a partnership firm continues till determined either in accordance with law or by act of the parties. The execution of a rent note by one of the partners in his personal capacity does not bring an end to the tenancy taken by the firm. The occupation of the premises by the new firm, which includes one of the original partners, does not amount to subletting.

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. The landlords sought ejectment of Gian Chand tenant on the pleas that he had sub-let the shop to Sarvshri Dharam Chand Manohar Lal, sons of Chuni Lal and Malawa Ram son of Bisanda Ram, who were carrying on business in the name and style of Manohar Stores. In case M/s Manohar Stores is proved to be partnership firm, since the tenancy was only given to Gian Chand ejectment is sought on the ground of sub-letting to Dharam Chand, Manohar Lal sons of Chuni Lal and Malawa Ram son of Bisanda Ram and for non-payment of rent. In highlighting the facts of sub-letting, it was pleaded that Gian Chand was the tenant whereas the sub-tenants were carrying on business in the name and style of Manohar Stores. In the alternative it was pleaded that if it is proved that Manohar Stores was proved to be the tenants, yet order of ejectment the ground of sub-letting was liable to be passed because M/r Manohar Stores partnership firm stood dissolved and, therefore, the occupation of the rest while partners was by the way of sub-letting. In the written statement it was pleaded that M/r Manohar Stores had taken the premises on rent on 1.5.1961 through Manohar Lal as partner of the firm. It was further pleaded that Gian Chand may have executed a rent note later on as partner of the aforesaid firm and he never executed any rent note in his individual/personal capacity, and that is why the rent note alleged to have been executed by Gian Chand was being withheld by the landlords. It was a definite plea that firm M/s Manohar Stores was the tenant form the very beginning and continued to be the tenant and its erstwhile partners along with the wife or children of some of them continued to be partners of the new firm which was being carried on at the time of filing of the ejectment petition. The arrears of rent were tendered by the firm which tender was accepted by the landlords.

2. Both the Courts below ordered ejectment on both the grounds after recording a finding that Gian Chand was the tenant in his individual capacity on the basis of rent note dated 8.6.1964 for the proof of which secondary evidence was led as the original was not traceable and since the tender was made by the firm it was held to be invalid. This is revision by the partners of M/s Manohar Stores who are alleged to be the sub-tenants.

3. The matter was not considered and appreciated by the two Courts below in its true and correct perspectively and that is why they were completely misled in going into matters which were wholly unnecessary and in ignoring the real points involved in the controversy. Rent note Exhibit R. 2 is dated 1.5.1961. Regarding this a definite plea as taken by the tenants in the written statement and that plea in application was not controverted in the manner it should have been done. In fact the evasive reply will have to be treated as admission of the plea raised in the written statement about the rent note dated 1.5.1961. In any event from the evidence on record, the execution of the rent note dated 1.5.1961 is amply proved and this point is beyond the pale of controversy. A reading of the rent note shows that the tenancy was taken by Manohar Stores Cloth Merchant, Bhiwani, through Manohar Lal son of Chuni Lal, Hissar. It the recital in the rent note had been that Manohar Lal son of Chuni Lal partner of M/s Manohar Stores was taking the premises on rent, then certainly it could be held that Manohar Lal took the premises on rent in his individual capacity. It is patent that M/s Manohar Stores took the premises on rent through one of its partners. Therefore, from 1.5.1961 it will be deemed that the partners who were in existence at that time would be the tenants.

4. In spite of the plea of the tenants that the firm took the premises on tenancy on 1.5.1961, no plea was taken by the landlords that the firm gave up the tenancy. In the absence of plea of the tenancy dated 1.5.1961 coming to an end, that tenancy will continue till determin