Heritable tenancy obligations and disguised subletting through partnership deeds can still justify eviction under rent control law.

Successor-tenants inherit both the rights and obligations attached to a tenancy, so an alleged ground of eviction based on subletting or parting with possession is not confined to acts of the original tenant. A partnership deed will not defeat rent control consequences if, on the facts, it operates as a device masking a transfer of lease rights or disguised subletting; the real nature of the arrangement must be tested from surrounding circumstances and evidence. The prior concurrent findings were set aside and the matter required fresh determination on the evidence under the applicable rent control provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the obligation arising from an alleged act of subletting or parting with possession survives against heirs who succeed to the tenancy, and whether the earlier contrary view could be applied; (ii) Whether a partnership deed can, on the facts, operate as a cloak for subletting or transfer of rights under the lease so as to attract eviction under the rent control law.

Issue (i): Whether the obligation arising from an alleged act of subletting or parting with possession survives against heirs who succeed to the tenancy, and whether the earlier contrary view could be applied.

Analysis: Tenancy is a heritable right unless the statute or the lease shows a bar to heritability. A successor who inherits the tenancy also inherits the obligations attached to it, and cannot claim a higher right than the deceased tenant. The contrary approach, which confined the ground of eviction only to the acts of the original tenant, was held inapplicable in the present statutory setting. On that basis, the earlier decisions below, which proceeded on that view, could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The heirs of a deceased tenant are not insulated from the consequences of the tenancy obligations, and the ground of eviction is not confined to acts of the original tenant alone.

Issue (ii): Whether a partnership deed can, on the facts, operate as a cloak for subletting or transfer of rights under the lease so as to attract eviction under the rent control law.

Analysis: A mere partnership does not by itself amount to subletting or parting with possession if the tenant remains in effective control and use of the premises. But where user and control are effectively surrendered to another and the partnership is used only as a device to conceal an unlawful transfer or sub-tenancy, the form of the document cannot prevail over the real nature of the transaction. In such a case, the landlord may rely on surrounding circumstances, oral evidence, and cross-examination to establish the true character of the arrangement. Parting with possession or control may amount to transfer of rights under the lease within the meaning of the rent control provision.

Conclusion: A partnership deed may, depending on the facts, amount to a disguised subletting or transfer of lease rights, but the factual finding had to be recorded afresh.

Final Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration by the appellate authority on the evidence, and the earlier concurrent findings were set aside so that the eviction ground could be determined anew under the applicable rent control provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Successor-tenants inherit both the rights and obligations attached to the tenancy, and a partnership arrangement will not defeat eviction if it is found to be a device masking subletting or parting with possession.

---