1949 (7) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s partners. This partnership firm was dissolved sometime in 1943 and thereafter no fresh business was done, but the affairs of the partnership were wound up. By 14th November 1946 the winding up was completed and accounts were finally settled. Meanwhile on 15th March 1944 respondent 1 purported to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit and followed up the notice with a suit for eviction in the Court of Small Causes (S. No. 252 of 1944). That suit was dismissed on 16th August 1944 and respondent l was directed to obtain relief from the Rent Controller. On 9th December 1946, after the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1946 came into force, an application was filed by respondent l against the three erstwhile partners for evicti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in his individual capacity for his separate business; to use his own words, "the petitioner (landlord) was therefore justified in treating the respondents as collectively the tenant of the property and respondent 1 (petitioner here) as a sub-tenant from and after 14th November 1946." 3. In our opinion the learned Judge fell into an obvious error of law in arriving at this conclusion. The position was shortly this The original tenancy was in favour of three persons who were partners in a firm. After the dissolution of the firm, one of the partners was allowed to wind up the affairs of the partnership and thereafter was allowed to use the premises for his sole business. This act on the part of the two partners other than the petitioner ca....