JUDGMENT

Mithan Lal, J. - This second appeal filed by the landlord arises out of a suit for possession by eviction of the Defendants. The facts of the case have not been disputed. The Plaintiff Appellant is the owner of the shop in dispute which was let out to Defendant No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12-8-0 per mensem. No rent was in arrears except for one month. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 2 had sublet the shop to Defendant No. 2 after taking some premium and as the subletting of the shop was without the consent of the Plaintiff, therefore, he was liable to ejectment. A notice of eviction was also served and then the suit was brought.

2. Both the Defendant-Respondents contested the suit. Their main plea was that there was no subletting of the shop by Defendant No. 1 and that both the Defendants had entered into a partnership business and so both of them were continuing in possession. It was disputed that any premium or pagri had been taken from Defendant No. 2 and the taking of Defendant No. 2 as a partner was said not to amount to any subletting.

3. Both the Courts below have found that Defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the shop in dispute at Rs. 12-8-10 per mensem rent, that no pagri was taken from Defendant No. 2, but as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a partnership in September 1950 this partnership was being run in the shop instead of the single owned business of Defendant No. 1. According to the view taken by both the Courts below it does not amount to subletting and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any decree for ejectment. The suit was accordingly dismissed. It is against these findings that the present appeal has been instituted.

4. The matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who thought that the question "Whether by converting the business from a single owned business into a partnership business there was any subletting" was an important question and consequently the matter was referred to a Bench.

5. The only question which arises for consideration in the case is whether Defendant No. 1 should be deemed to have sublet the shop within the meaning of S. 3(1)(e) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act because he took Defendant No. 2 as a partner in the business in September 1950.

6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length in the case. It is not disputed that originally Defendant No. 1 alone was a tenant of the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 12-8-0 and thereafter he took Defendant No. 2 as a partner by entering into a partnership agreement on the 28th of September 1950. One of the terms of the partnership agreement is as follows:

Yeh ki dukan haza tarikh imroza se baruye shirakatnama haza donon fariqain ki mushtarka kirayedari me mutsawwar hogi.

7. The original partnership deed which was filed in the case by the Defendants and was marked Ex. D was taken back by them along with Exs. A, B and C as noted in the General Index of the original file. Mr. Bhargava, Learned Counsel for the Respondents, is not in a position to produce the original deed. A copy of the same has been supplied to us by the counsel for the Appellant and the aforesaid term of the said agreement has been quoted from that copy.

8. It is a case in which the tenant has not completely withdrawn his possession from the premises but has put in another person in joint possession along with himself.

9. It would appear from the object of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act that the Act was enforced in order to meet the shortage of accommodation in the State by controlling the letting out of the accommodation as well as its rent with the object that the tenants may not be harassed by undue eviction. It seems that with this object in view a wider meaning was given to the definition of the words "landlord" and "tenant". "Landlord" has been defined as a person to whom rent is payable by a tenant in respect of any accommodation and includes the agent, attorney, heir or assignee of such pe