The relinquishment of leasehold rights by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in favor of the co-tenant did not amount to a transfer within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, and the taking of partners in business by the tenant did not constitute a sub-letting within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. Shyam Sunder and his two brothers Madan Mohan and Manohar Lal were the owners of the premises in dispute which consist of a building used for business purposes in Amritsar City. This building was g ven on rent to firm Brij Lal Chaman it with effect from 1st of February 1957 on a monthly rent of Rs. 97 per mensem. The rent deed was, however, executed on 11th of October 1957 by Brij Lal on behalf of the firm which had two partners Brij Lal and Chaman Lal. Brij Lal died on 16th of June 1961, leaving behind a widow and two sons as his legal representatives. On 12th of October 1961 the partnership firm was dissolved and a deed of dissolution was executed between Chaman Lal and the legal representatives of Brij Lal.

Under this document, the rights in the .shop in dispute fell to the share of Chaman Lal who alone carried on his business in this building. Later on Chaman Lal took his brother Madan Lal and the letters son as partners with him and started his business under the name and style of Madan Lal Chaman Lal. On 15th of April, 1963, Shyam Sunder and his two brothers filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), against the firm Brij Lal Chaman Lal, the widow and two sons of Brij Lal, and Chaman Lal, respondents 1-5, praying for their eviction from the premises in dispute on two grounds, but we are in the present petition concerned with only one of them, namely- "That the firm respondent 1 was dissolved by the death of Shri Brij Lal and in any case by voluntary dissolution between Shri Chaman Lal and other respondents Nos. 2-4 about a year ago. The firm respondent No. 1 thus ceased to exist about a year ago. Furthermore, the possession of the building has been parted with and given to Messrs. Madan Lal Chaman Lal since about a year ago."

2. This application was resisted by Chaman Lal both in his individual capacity as well as being the proprietor of the dissolved firm Messrs. Brij Lal Chaman Lal. According to him -

"The firm was riot dissolved on the death of Brij Lal, but it continued. Thereafter a dissolution took place between heirs of Shri Brij Lal and the replying respondent, vide deed of dissolution of 12-10-1961 and the good-will along with the lessee rights of the shop in disput fell to the share of the replying respondent (Chaman Lal) and as the tenancy rights were of the co-lessee and by dissolution one of the lessees became the owner thereof, the said change does not fall within the mischief of Rent Act. The question of firms name of respondent No. 1 having ceased to exist is of no avail to the landlord. This fact is denied that the replying respondent has parted with possession of the demised premises. Madan Lal Chaman Lal is nobody else than the replying respondent his brother and son, who were carrying on business in the demised premises and replying respondent is also one of the proprietors of the same. The allegations as made do not fall within the ambit of any of the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act and as such the replying respondent is not liable to ejectment.

The allegations do not make up the case of sub-letting or assignment of lessee rights nor has there been any sub-letting or assignment of lessee rights. As such the present application is liable to be dismissed, even otherwise the petitioners having accepted the rent from the replying respondents in the name of Madan Lal Chaman Lal for more than three months are estopped by their act and conduct from pleading otherwise now."

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Kent Controller framed only one issue in the case, viz., "Are the applicants entitled to an order of ejectment on the grounds pleaded in para. 5(ii) of the application?". He held that Brij Lal and Chaman Lal were the joint tenants of the premises in dispute under the applicants and that being so both of them had a right to occupy the entire tenanted premises and they were not tenants in res