( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Ram Bhrose defendant 2 from a decree for ejectment passed against him and defendant 1 who is dead.

( 2 ) THE suit for ejectment was brought without permission of the District Magistrate on the ground that the defendant had illegally sublet the shop to a firm Har Oharan Das Hari Shankar (defendant 3), one of whose proprietors is Ganga Prasad defendant 4. The suit was contested on the ground that defendant 2 had not sublet at all and that he had entered into a partnership with ganga Prasad and others and was in possession as one of the proprietors of the partnership. He admitted that the firm Har Charan Das Hari Shankar was in possession of the shop and carrying on business there, but claimed that he continued to be in possession as one of the partners of that firm.

( 3 ) BOTH the Courts held that the alleged partnership between Bam Bharose appellant and Ganga prasad and others was not proved and that in fact he had sublet the shop to the firm Har Oharan das Hari Shankar without the permission of the landlord and thus rendered himself liable to ejectment.

( 4 ) THE appellant met the landlords plea of subletting by setting up partnership with Ganga prasad etc. The onus of proving that he was a partner in the firm lay upon him. He did not produce satisfactory evidence to prove it. No account books of the firm were produced nor was any of the other proprietors of the firm examined in support of his claim. The circumstances also do not favour his being a partner; it cannot be believed that without contributing towards the capital of the partnership, he would have been given an eight-anna share as claimed by him. His name does not find place in the name of the firm at all. The certificate of registration, which he has produced, does not show who are the partners of the firm. In these circumstances, the Courts below did not at all act illegally in holding that the applicant failed to prove that he is a partner in the firm.

( 5 ) WHEN the appellant is not proved to have any interest in the firm, it is admitted that the firm is in possession of the shop and carrying on business there and it appears that it has been doing so with the consent and approval of the appellant, it follows that it is in possession as a sub-tenant. It was not essential for the landlord to prove that the firm has been paying rent to the appellant. Rent need not be payable by the firm to the appellant in order to create the relationship of landlord and tenant. The definition of "tenant" contained in the Rent Control Act makes it clear that in order that a person be a tenant of another, it is not essential that he is under a liability to pay rent. What is essential is that but for a contract, express or; implied, he is under a liability to pay rent. It was open to the appellant to sublet the shop to the firm on condition that no rent would be payable by the firm. The existence of a contract under which no rent would be payable by the firm to the appellant would not mean that the firm is not a sub-tenant of the appellant. Therefore, the landlords failure to prove any contract of payment of rent or the fact of payment of rent" did not mean that the appellant had not sublet to the firm. The circumstances, which have been admitted and proved in the case, fully support the conclusion of the Courts below that the appellant has sublet the shop to the firm, and admittedly he did so without the landlords consent. He, therefore, rendered himself liable, to ejectment even without the District magistrates permission.

( 6 ) THE argument that the landlord should have obtained the District Magistrates permission before ejectment of the sub-tenant also is devoid of merit. The ordinary law is that a decree for ejectment passed against a tenant binds all those claiming under him such as his subtenants, etc. A tenant is unable to grant any larger estate in the property than he has himself. The law does not require those persons to be impleaded at all as def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document