IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1553 of 1986 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PATEL FOOT WEAR Versus BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BHARAT J SHELAT for Petitioners MR PM RAVAL for Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 07/07/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This is a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the original defendants-tenants, who were sued by the respondent-plaintiff-landlord, for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, on the ground that the original tenant had illegally sublet the suit premises in favour of the defendants, in terms of section 13(1)(e) of the said Act. 2. The trial court, on a totality of the evidentiary material on record, found in favour of the plaintiff-landlord, by holding that the original-tenant was guilty of illegal subletting in favour of the defendants, and therefore passed a decree of eviction. 3. The defendants being aggrieved by the said decree, preferred an appeal under section 29(1) of the said Act, which was heard and dismissed by the lower appellate court. Hence the present revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. 4. Before proceeding with the merits of the matter it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with the revisions arising under section 29(2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Others Vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai [1998(2) GLH 736 = AIR 1998 SC 3325], while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyad Hohmad Mirasaheb Kadri [AIR 1987 SC 1782], held that High Court cannot function as a court of appeal, cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evidence recorded by the courts below, and cannot interfere on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence, and cannot interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the courts below are on the basis of no evidence at all, or are perverse. A different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because another view on the same set of facts may just be possible. 5. The crux of the matter is as to whether who was the original tenant and what is the status of the defendants who were sued by the landlord as illegal sub-tenants. 6. There is no dispute or at least it is undisputable that the original tenancy created by the landlord was in favour of one Kavasji Palji Boganwala. The terms of the tenancy were recorded in writing by way of a rent note dated 31st July 1961, which is proved and is on record. 7. Thereafter the said Kavasji entered into a partnership and continued to do business in the suit premises in the name of Patel Footwear viz. defendant no.1. Thereafter the said Kavasji expired, and obviously, therefore, the partnership firm ceased to have any legal existence. However, the defendant no.2 thereafter entered into the business of the firm as a fresh partner, and continued to do business in the suit premises. 8. On the aforesaid facts it is obvious that once the original tenant Kavasji expired, the firm in which he was a partner viz. Patel footwear ceased to have any legal existence. Furthermore, when defendant no.2 entered as a fresh partner in the partnership firm, it could not possibly be said that the said partnership firm was a tenant of the plaintiff-landlord. Furthermore, there is no dispute on the documentary evidence on record that the original tenant Kavasji who had entered into a partnership with other partners for the purpose of starting the firm by the name of Patel Footwear, had in the partnership deed itself assigned the tenancy rights to the said partnership firm. This was also patently in violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. For this reason also the said firm of Patel Footwear did not acquire any legal or legitimate interest in the suit property, and consequently the successor firm also could not acquire any such interest. 9. In the premises aforesaid, the impugned judgements and decrees of the two courts below are eminently sustainable and require no interference by this court in the present revision. This revision is, therefore, required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. ***** *ar*