1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2011 1. Shri Venceslao Gonsalves (since deceased) through his legal representative Shri Gabriel Gonsalves, A Estrela Hotel, Off Highway NH-17, Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa. 2. Shri Eustaquio Dias, c/o. Crescent Tailors, Patto Bridge, Panaji, Goa. 3. Shri Norman Azavedo, St. Francis Colony, St. Cruz, Panaji-Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. The Administrative Tribunal, by its Chairman, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Rent Controller, Collectorate, Panaji, Goa. 3. Shri Durganand R. Sawardekar, r/o. Datta Krupa, Durganand Nagar, Sanvordem, Curchorem, Goa. 4. Mrs. Sushilabai D. Sawardekar (since deceased) through her L.Rs: (a) Shailesh Durganand Sawardekar, (b) Rena Shailesh Sawardekar, 2 Both r/o. BG-2, Sapna Manzil, N.D. Nayak Road, Margao, Goa. c) Dr. Sjekhar Shirwaikar, d) Mrs. Shekhar Shiwaikar, both r/o. Miramar, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Shiban Dessai, Advocate for respondent nos.4(a), (b) and (d). Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri V. Braganza, Advocate for respondent nos.3, 4(d). CORAM : SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATE 21ST OCTOBER, 2011. ORDER This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellants to challenge eviction order 3 passed against them by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal. 2. One of the grounds of eviction alleged by respondent nos.3 and 4, the landlords, in their eviction proceedings, which is the only ground surviving today, is of sub-letting of the premises by appellant nos.1 and 2 to appellate no.3. The ground was sought to be defended by the appellants contending that appellant nos.1 and 2 had by executing Deed of Re-constitution of Partnership dated 24th April, 1995 inducted appellant no.3 as a partner in their partnership business of M/s. La Vista Lodge carried from the demised premises and hence there was no sub-letting. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence before him specifically found that the alleged agreement of partnership is sham and bogus and it was created only to take up a false defence. For arriving at this finding, the Rent Controller amongst several other circumstances noted unequivocal admission by appellant no.3 in his cross-examination which reads as follows:- 4 “It is true to suggest that on 17/05/96 applicant no.1 met me at my residence and I had disclosed that I have entered into an agreement of sub lease with respondent nos.1 & 2 on payment of monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- & Security of Rs.60,000/-”. The above finding of fact has been confirmed by the exhaustive judgments of the Administrative Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Apex Court in its decision in Celina Coelho Pereira(Ms) and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others((2010) 1 SCC 217) has held that if the purpose of partnership alleged is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal the real transaction of sub-letting, the court can tear the veil of partnership to find out the real nature of transaction entered into by the tenant. We have carefully gone through the records of the proceedings and are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by all the three Courts is fully supported by the evidence produced. Therefore, the same cannot be disturbed in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5 3. Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Rent Controller erred in not allowing the appellants to produce the deed of reconstitution of partnership dated 24th April, 1995. According to him, failure on the part of the Rent Controller to exhibit the deed has caused great prejudice to the appellants inasmuch as they were precluded from relying on the terms of the deed to show that appellant no.3 was admitted as partner of the firm and the terms of the reconstitution of the firm. In the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the evidence led on behalf of the appellants was of appellant no.2 and appellant no.3. The Rent Controller rejected the evidence of appellant no.2 because he did not make himself available for cross-examination by respondent nos.3 and 4. The evidence of appellant no.3 alone was considered. The agreement of reconstitution of the partnership was sought to be produced through appellant no.3. The Rent Controller refused to exhibit the document on the ground that the same was not registered. Shri Diniz submits that the Rent Controller could not have refused to reject the document on such ground. After considering the record, we are of the opinion that non-production of 6 this document can be of no consequence in view of the extensive evidence on record which shows that appellant no.3 was in fact not concerned with the partnership business and also that he was put in exclusive possession of the demised premises. The evidence on this aspect has been considered in detail by the Courts below as well as by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstance, we find no merit in this submission advanced by Shri Diniz. 4. The next submission of Shri Diniz is that the eviction proceedings as filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 against appellant nos.1 and 2 were not maintainable. He argues that there was no privity of contract between appellant nos.1 and 2 and respondent nos.3 and 4 and that the contract of tenancy was between the partnership firm of appellant nos.1 and 2 and respondent nos.3 and 4. According to him, the eviction proceedings ought to have been filed against the partnership firm. Undisputedly, this contention was not raised at any time earlier. The present Letters Patent Appeal also contains no ground based on the contention. It is sought to be raised for the first time during the course of the arguments. It therefore 7 deserves outright rejection. In any case even on merits the argument is without substance. Firstly, a partnership firm is not a legal person. Secondly, both the partners are parties to the eviction proceedings, and thirdly, perusal of the lease agreement shows that it was entered into with appellant nos.1 and 2 for carrying on the partnership business from the demised premises. The agreement was not entered into with the partnership firm. 4. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal in limine with costs. SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. F. M. REIS, J. RD