Deemed vacancy and sub-letting arise when a non-family partner is inducted into non-residential premises; heirs take as joint tenants.

A rent-control statute treats a non-residential tenant as having ceased to occupy the premises when a person outside the defined family is inducted as partner, and the deeming fiction must be applied fully without probing the parties' motive. That cessation is also deemed sub-letting under the statutory explanation, creating a ground of eviction even without proof of actual transfer of possession. On the tenant's death, the tenancy devolves as a single tenancy on the heirs, who are treated as joint tenants rather than tenants in common, so a breach by one heir can affect the entire tenancy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether induction of a person who is not a member of the tenant's family as partner in a non-residential premises attracts deemed vacancy under Section 12(2) and Section 12(4); (ii) whether such deemed cessation of occupation also amounts to sub-letting under Section 25 read with Section 20(2)(e); and (iii) whether, on the death of the original tenant, the heirs hold as joint tenants or tenants in common so that a breach by one heir can affect the whole tenancy.

Issue (i): whether induction of a person who is not a member of the tenant's family as partner in a non-residential premises attracts deemed vacancy under Section 12(2) and Section 12(4).

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats a non-residential tenant who admits a person not falling within the defined family as a partner as having ceased to occupy the building. The deeming provision is mandatory and creates a legal fiction which must be carried to its logical end. Once the factual precondition is satisfied, the court cannot enquire into the object of the induction or whether the arrangement was a mere device.

Conclusion: The admission of the son-in-law as partner attracted deemed vacancy under Section 12(2) and Section 12(4).

Issue (ii): whether such deemed cessation of occupation also amounts to sub-letting under Section 25 read with Section 20(2)(e).

Analysis: Explanation (i) to Section 25 expressly provides that where the tenant ceases to occupy the building within the meaning of Section 12(2), he shall be deemed to have sub-let the building or part thereof. That deemed sub-letting becomes a statutory ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(e). The existence of actual transfer of possession is not required once the legal fiction operates.

Conclusion: The conduct amounted to deemed sub-letting and furnished a ground of eviction under Section 20(2)(e).

Issue (iii): whether, on the death of the original tenant, the heirs hold as joint tenants or tenants in common so that a breach by one heir can affect the whole tenancy.

Analysis: The tenancy devolves as a single tenancy on the heirs, with the same incidents as those attached to the original tenancy. The statutory context does not support splitting the tenancy into separate and independent tenancies in the hands of each heir. If that were so, the scheme of rent payment and the grounds of eviction would become unworkable and inconsistent with the Act.

Conclusion: The heirs succeeded as joint tenants, and a breach by one heir could affect the entire tenancy.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was reversed and the orders declaring vacancy were restored, the statutory grounds for eviction having been established on the admitted facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rent-control statute deems a non-residential tenant to have ceased to occupy premises upon admitting a non-family partner, the court must give full effect to the legal fiction, and the heirs of the original tenant are to be treated as joint tenants unless the statute provides otherwise.

---