AMAR NATH AGARWALLA versus DHILLON TRANSPORT AGENCY

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 28-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMAR NATH AGARWALLA 
v. 
t -
DHILLON TRANSPORT AGENCY 
FEBRUARY 28, 2007 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND H.S. BED!, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
' -
c 
Eviction of tenant-Sought on ground of sub-letting-Premises 
originally rented out to a partnership firm-Firm dissolved-Assets given to 
one partner who carried on business in the same premises forming another 
partnership with himself as one of the partners-Held, there was no sub-
letting-Suit of landlord was rightly dismissed by High Court-Partnership-
Firm carrying on business in rented premises -Original partnership dissolved 
D and another partnership constituted-Effect on tenancy. 
Evidence-Documents filed along with written submission and not 
exhibited at the trial--Held, cannot be looked into since they were not put 
in evidence and defendant had no opportunity of replying to such documents. 
.-( 
E 
Appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent firm, on the ground 
that the defendant had sub-let, assigned/transferred possession of the suit 
premises without the consent of the plaintiff-landlord. The defendant contested 
the suit stating that originally the tenant-partnership comprised four partners 
and when the said firm was dissolved all of its assets were given to one of 
them who formed another firm with himself as one of the partners and, 
F therefore, unless the 1tenancy was transferred by such partner to a third 
person, it would not amount to sub-letting. The plaintiff, along with his written 
submission filed certain documents to prove sub-letting which were not 
y 
• 
exhibited at tite trial. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court 
held that no sub-tenancy was created. Aggrieved, the landlord filed the appeal. 
G 
On the question: whether carrying on business in the suit premises by 
one of the partners of the firm, which was originally the tenant amounts to 
sub-letting of the premises by the original tenant, 
Dismissing the a1ppeals of the landlord, the Court 
H 
442 
AMAR NA TH AGAR WALLA v. DHILLON TRANSPORT AGENCY 
443 
HELD: 1. It is patent that one of the partners of the firm which was the A 
... \ 
original tenant has continued in legal possession of the premises as a partner 
of another firm constituted after dissolution of the original firm. Thus the 
legal possession is retained by a partner who was one of the original tenants. 
In these circumstances, in view of the principles laid down by this Court, the 
High Court rightly held that there was no sub-letting of the premises and, B 
therefore, the suit for eviction deserved to be dismissed. (Para 11] 
(446-H; 447-A] 
Murli Dhar v. Chuni Lal & Ors., [1969] SCR 563; Mohammedkasam 
-J 
Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali Fatehali (dead) by Lrs., (1998] 7 SCC 608 and 
Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy, [2005] 1 SCC 481, c 
relied on. 
2. The documents which were filed by the plaintiff along with his written 
submissions and were not exhibited at the trial cannot be looked into since 
they were not put in evidence and the defendant had no opportunity of replying 
those documents. (Para 4) (444-Fl 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1223-1224 of 
2005. 
> 
·> 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2002 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Calcutta in F.A. No. 231/1995 & F.A. No. 232/1995. 
E 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh, Vimla Sinha, 
Amit Kr. Singh for the Appellant. 
Kailash Vasdev, l.S. Alag, J.S. Lamba, Bhuwan Puri, Amit Bhagat, Pradeep 
Kumar Bakshi for the Respondent. 
F 
• 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
...., 
I. The appellant in these appeals by special leave is the landlord who 
filed a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant from the premises in question. 
The tenancy was created in favour of the respondent firm which consisted G 
of four partners. 
-· 
2. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the ground that the 
defendant had sub-let, assigned and/or transferred possession of the said 
premises and/or part thereof to Dhillon Transport Quick Service and Dhillon 
Roadways Corporation and others consent in writing of the plaintiff landlord. H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A In its written statement the tenant denied the allegation of sub tenancy and 
submitted that Mis Dhillon Transport Agency, a partnership firm was originally 
the tenant. The partnership had four partners who carried on business in the 
name and style of Dhillon transport Agency. Since disputes and diffe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.