JUDGMENT

B. Dayal, J. - This Second Appeal has been referred to this Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court. The facts of the case may shortly be stated. The present suit was filed by Seth Lakshmi Chand for ejectment against the Defendants National and Dulichand on the allegations that the original tenants Nathmal and Dulichand had sublet the shop to one Sriram and the Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to eject the Defendants. It is not denied that the Plaintiff let out the shop to the two Defendants who are brothers on a monthly rental of Rs. 65/-. The defence, on the other hand, was that the Defendants had not sublet the shop to Sriram bat that Nathmal had started business in partnership with Sriram in the same premises and they were still carrying on the old business which Nathmal and Dulichand were doing in the shop. The Plaintiff also claimed recovery of Rs. 195/-/- from the date of termination of the notice to the date of the filing of the suit as damages for use and occupation. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and also passed a decree for Rs. 150/ as damages at Rs. 50/-per mensem and also decreed future damages at the same rate. The Defendants filed an appeal which was heard by the 1st Civil Judge of Kanpur. The learned Civil Judge in the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that no subletting had been proved in favour of Sriram by the Defendants. He therefore dismissed the suit for ejectment and also dismissed the claim for damages on the ground that the Defendants were entitled to remain in possession. The Plaintiff has now come up in Second Appeal.

2. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the fact of Defendants Nathmal and Duilchand being the tenants of the shop is not denied and it is also proved on evidence that Nathmal entered into partnership with Sriram and it must be assumed in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the Defendants that there was no agreement to pay rent by Sriram, that Sriram had entered into an agreement of subtenancy with Nathmal and he, therefore, contends that the lower appellate court was worng in holding that the subtenancy had not been proved. The very fact of partnership coming into existence and using the shop according to him establishes a sub tenancy within the meaning of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. After hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are of the opinion that no such inference can be drawn. There being no evidence to prove the sub tenancy, it cannot be assumed merely on the basis that Sriram had been taken as a partner in some business carried on by the tenant in chief. Learned Counsel Strenuously relied upon a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Tansukhdts Chhaganlal v. Smt. Shambai(1)(AIR 1954 Nag. 160). In that case it was held by a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court that where a tenant of a premises had permitted several other persons to occupy the premises to run some business in the partnership with the tenant, it must be held that the tenant had created a sub tenancy. The only reason given for coming to that conclusion was that the partnership which the partner entered into along with third persons was clearly a personality in law distinct from that of the Petitioner himself. With due respect, to the opinion of the learned Judges, we are unable to see how a tenant by taking third persons as partners in his business creates any right in favour of third per sons in the tenancy itself. To our mind, rights regarding tenancy are distinct from the business which is run in this premises. A tenant is entitled to use the premises for whatever business he likes and it instead of running his own personal business, he takes a partner in his business and carries it on, the partner does not get any right in the title as a tenant. The tenant remains a tenant of the premises and instead of working alone he at the best takes the help of a partner whose position can o