t :.F Q• C 4S in C) DC 9-— C) C) cC C) I H () H cC I—) C) N CC (C) H.’ in H C <6 6 Ci NC) C) Q) it 9- ( (N 0”<CC IL I:) ))): H (L N ‘I) H 0 (iN n. H C) PC. 9 ‘C - ! iN 9b 9%; /1 U F H in )N C H H C) (IC U) (— C) H H” C) ND 9-: in) C) H . hi (( N H’ (“I 99 N N) in’ N Li C) ID.. :C I (5 ND (“Ni (“N) )‘C N. H’ H’ Nil (C) b< )t(:’.”’ ND I) NC) H C)) CC) it CI) ( (‘I U) C (‘H II) H) C) (4 )—< in C) H C’ CC <C C’ CC) CI (C) )‘)i) ))) C) C)) (in C I”) (Ni ‘<i (‘9 H ii C). it C) (.0 ‘1 (‘1’ C” hi C) C) C) CU C) C)) in N’) “ C) (‘C! hi. (“) (‘0 C)’). 9”. “9 H N C) ) <N:) I N C) o ,.( ,,i) <1.4 N, H i ‘N H N.) t N I) N ) C) • C) N) (N, (C) ( ( (‘1 .: C) 99 (‘9 cC <) h) N—’ C) (t: NC) C:.) 9999 :C) ND (I) C C’) NH IcC )C<. Cc) hi:) )C3 ‘N NC)’ • 9: (N .4 ci C) C ) 9”. N”). Ci 9) H’ 99) •999- CI C) h). H’ 99 C) 99 a it. 99 iCc a 99 : H in C:’) C) C) it ‘in’Ni C) I) C) H C)) (N. C) CC U) C) F’) PC’ PC )I) it :9- C) C)) I H N< C) N,) (C): CI H) N,, ) N a it N) ‘ CC N,i C)’) Ci’ (‘C ‘C: C”), C) NC): 9”N N’,,.’. I”) iCC C•) a a (:9:): C) CC) ORDER This revision petition under Section 115 of CPG is by the t iant in ‘egard to a non—residentiai premises situated at Mangalore. The respondent herein filed a petition for eviction under provisos (a), (f) & (i) to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ç’Act’ for short) against the petitioner herein, By order dated 14—3—1989 tue trial Court dismissed the petition in regard to grounds (a) & (i) and allowed the petition under Proviso (f on the ground that unauthorised subletting was proved. Feeling aggrieved, tenant filed aeut levisio Lition N .248/1989 on the file of the District Judge Daksbina Kannada, That petition was also dismissed by order dated 7—3—1998 oonfirilng the findings of the trial Court that the preaises has been unlawfully sub 1 t by the tenant. keel ng aggr e ed b ran b Id i e no p 2. re tenat admits that he had entered int C 3, - — w —3— partnership with one Chandrasbekar Prabbu in or a4nv 4t1 about the year 1983, It is also ut#u4sU that a- the said partnership continued upto the year 1987 According to the tenant, bota he and Gbandrahekar as partners, Prabhu/were carrying on the business in the petition schedule premises and that at all events, after ternination of the partnership in the year 1987, the tenant hasjexclusively in possession of the petition schedule preaiaes. It is therefore contended that the Cuirts below had committed a srlous error in directing evictIon 3, The tcnant next contends that inference drawn by the Courts below on the basis of terms of the partneisbip deed that there was unautnorised sublc ting and that part iersbip was only a cover for unautborised subletting is wholly tnitenable H ca Load to t it we e pplyed by the Conits below to find out whether partnership s eu t it b roao in b benaif. be rolre on th d.oisiia f t i- £ureme . 4, , Court in GIRDHAILBH&I vs. SAIYLD MOHAMAD MIiLASAJLSB KADRI & vlIILRS (Alit l9b7 30 1732). 4. There is a concurrent finding by the Courts below that Chandrasbekar Prabbu was in exclusive possession of the petition schedule premises and that the petitioner was not in.ct carrying on business in the premises dising 1983—84 a 1984e5. lb CVLC io it i n was filed in the year 1985. The Courts below have found that the tenant was earlier carrying on business in the name and style of Shakthi Auto Electrical Works’ of which be was the sole proprietor Thereafter, from the year 1983—84 business was carried on p Ocr th me and style of ‘Nalanda Provision Stores’ which ns shown as proprietory concern of Chandrashekar Prabhu. The certificate of tegistra ion issued in r gard to the said Nalaud Provi in t 5 b teAt tat uc. a O nerciai Lax Officer, Mangalore showi that it was a proprietory concern of Chandrasbekar Prabhu, the assess ent ord 5 for e years 083—34 a d lQ8485( t.P & lfl 1 alo disclo that M sNalanda Provision Stores was a proprietory concern and not partnership oncer Coupled with these facts, partnership deed which was produced b) the tenant a 1D4 dir1oses that bare nf nrnfit of tje tenant was i and share of profit for Chandrasbekar Prabbu was 99% The tenant also adsitted that be had no share in the losses and Chandrasbekar b Prabbu bad to the entire iosees (dause (8) of the deed also provided that Chandrashekar Prabbu sa41. be exclusively and solely r eponsible for the ,nanageKent of the affairs of the firm. Claus (9 pr vided that sank account of the firs u wa*t alsojt operated s ieiy b bandrasbekar Prabi a d no by the tenant Having regard t ibis e d cc the £ ur s below h’ve ‘eached idins that praises had been uuautbr s diy I t Pb e an iso ads tied b s idenc the we en t e f zed as n 1 600 5. Proviso (r) to bection 21(1) of thq*ct provides that if the tenant unlawfully sublets the whole or part & the premises or assigns or transferred in any manner his interest therein. the tenant is liable to be evicted. Sub—Section 1,3) of Section 21 provides that the Court may presume that the premises has been sub—let by the teiant, where such premises have been let out for non—residential purpose. if the Court is satisfied flat the tetant without obtaining the ensent in writing of the landlord, has allowed any person to occupy the whol’ or any part of th praises .beu.ably Gu .me souu4 test su.h pCsua a a part r in th bun a se but really for the purpos su letting sua rem a o tia person. 6. The fact that praises s a n—residential is not in dispute. The a hat the tenant entered into partnership watt chandrashekar Prabhu TM withoutLconsent in writing of the landlord is also not in dispute. The tenant also admits that he p. S S permitted Chandrashekar Prabhu to carry on the business in petition schedule premisesWhile the landlord ontends that Chandrasbekar Prabkau was io exclusive possessions the tent would contend that Chandrashekar Prabhu was in possession along with him Be that as it may The requirements of Sub—Glause(b) of Section 21(3) are complied with and therefore the Court will have to presume that premises has been sublet If there is such jresumption, it jS for the tenant to rebut the presumption and it is not necessary for the landlord to prove anything more The documents produ ed and the e iden e have led to a lea linding wh Ii have bee zefezred above Ihost. indings dis ace that premises wa in the cxci sive occupation ard poSsesSion o Chandrashekar Prabbu during the years l9€i3S4 and 198485 till thvictiou petition was filed The fact that subsequentiy Chakdrashekar Prabbu ceased to tie a partner and be tenaut came I a excius sian of b p rty,is w unauthorised subLetting the were fact that subsequently such sublettirg has come to an end ,will not disentil e the landlord oa •t: order of eviction, F 7 The tenant ba 0 t beer able t° point out any error in t be several circumstances and facts referred to by the Courts belo, to come to the conclusion that there was no unauthorised subletting. I am satisfied that the facts and circumstances were sufficient to give room for inference and presumption that there was sLbletting and that tresumptlon has not been ebutted by satlsfa tory evidence b the tena 8. Tb de ision i Girdbarbbifls c se of no assi tan to the petit o r. The said e sion holds that it three requirements as contemplated under the Partnership Act are zultilled, there will be valid partnership even though there is a not provision that tenant will/have an abare in the bat losse od t tenant a perate ha k ac o ree are e9e fulfilled are (a) then east be an agreement between or more two/parties; (b) an agreement must be to share profits of business; and (c) business east be carried on by all or amy person concerned aetirg for all. While the fint and second requirements are tulfilled, tenant has not satisfied the fulfilment the of/requirement which requires that business east be carried on by all or any of the pesons acting for all. The tern of partrership discloses that Chandrashekar Prabhu was to be aclusively awl solely responsible ron the day teday running of the business and the petitioner has not proved that the business was carried on by (handrashekar Prabhu 113 on behalf of both Chandrashekar Prabhu and, tekaut. In vicw of it it has be hel that th bald e asic of t e bugre Cour as f is nsa tan Further, provisions of the Boabay deuts, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, i47 are not in pan ateria with proviso (f) t Sectaov 2i(i and eta ( be 10.. I —to — 9 This Court had an occasion to onsider Section2l(J) of the Act in SflE SAPYANABAYANA BALL AND OTIIflS vs A.C.’UJAGUNA (1973(1 Mys.L.J. J4J). This Court held that “ The Court is entitled to raise a presumption in favour of subletting in any case of partner ship entered into by the lessee, without a written permission of the landlord for such use and occupation of the leased premises when it is satisfied that such partnership is only ostensible and in reality it amounts to subletting. “ It s Court further held that: Section 21(J)(b) invests the Court with Jurisdi tion to go behind the veil of partnership as it were and consider wh he r n t the tenart s really an ffect ye par ncr in such part •r rr ha mer ly Ici a C wth vi. w to dis misc b sublettng n tb ewe lse f s h ur sdiction, he *r s o pete Ii the d d o oveunu the 5 1 the Court further de clear Hat • hay finding that the partne ship deed ii in reality a subletting. would only have the effect for the purpose of Rent Control Act and would not necessarily lead to the ounclusion that the deed is invalid and inoperative between the partners interse. Thus, assumption of the pttitioner that partnership should be found to be invalid e raise a presumption of subletting is wholly without basis. A partnership may be valid for the purpose of flrtnership Act. But, nevertheless,tmay amount to sublettiug for the purpose of proviso (f) to Section 21(1) and Section 21(3) of the Act. Theetore there is n ritin h £ onand ts ej tedwtb ss ‘03 iO. At his stage, leand umsel for the petitioner VP!,.. eix months tine to vacate the premises. Leaned counel tar respondent subaitb that such tii° may be granted provided tat ptiti oner—teaaat files an unde. ttnig to vacate 4.. ‘if’ * S 0;; itt; $ tjgt Es fit I; S I ‘I a iii abt• • .n ‘Es ;ii liii 42ii II: S 0 Li NIi S I!