LexKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC. versus GHOUSE BASHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC.
A
v.
GHOUSE BASHA
SEPTEMBER 8; 1987
[SABYASACHi MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.)
B
,-1~
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960: s. 10(3)
(a)(iii)-DemiSed premise~Requirement of by landlord for sons'
business in partnership with stranger~Eviction order~Validity of.
)-
The landlord was carrying on leather business in which his two c
sons used to take active part. Thereafter they went into a partnership
with others to carry on the business and jointly held halfthe shares. The
landlord needed the demised premises bona fide ro.r the business of his
sons. The High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the
courts below.
D
In the appeal, it was contended for the appellant that an applica-
lion for eviction under s. 10(3)(a)(iil) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was liable to be dismissed solely on
the grollnd that the landlord had chosen to file it to accommodate a
'(
partnership firm in which his sons and some strangers were partners,
which was not in conformity with the provisions of the section.
E
Dismissln~ the ~ppeal,
HELD: If the deed of partnership excludes ihe son expressly
or impliedly from the management of the firm of business and makes
him a sleeping partner it cannot be said that the accommodation is F
needed directly of substantially for his occupation by way of his
business. [68A)
D.N. Sanghavi & Sons v. Ambalal Tribhuvan Das, [1974] 3 SCR
55, applied.
('
G
Shanti/al Thamordas & Ors. v. Chimanlal Magan/al Te/ware,
(1977) 1SCR341, distinguished.
i
Partnership is a compendious way of describing those wh·o consti-.
lute the firm under s. 4 of the Partnership Act. If a person carries on a
.,
business alongwith other partners and it was the other partner who H
65
66
SUPREME COURT REPQRTS
[1988] I S.C.R.
A actually carried on the business the position perhaps would have been
l<-..._
entirely different. If the same were only sleeping partners that would
B
c
have been different. [67CD]
,
In the instant case, the partnership deed was silent as to what role
the sons of the landlord would perform in it. There is, however,
evidence that they were in the leather business and had carried on the
business previously before shifting to the premises in question. If that
is the position, it cannot be said that they were sleeping partners.
Having regard to the past conduct of the sons and having regard to
their shares in the partnership it can be said that the sons were
carrying on business actively along with other partners. As such, the
sons needing the accommodation with others would be for the sons'
business in terms of s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act. The landlord was, therefore, entitled to the
benefit of eviction. [67B, 68BC, 67DE, 68C, 67E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 689-
D 90 of 1987.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 27. ll .1986 of the Madras
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3306 of 1984.
A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.
San jay Parekh and Sudershan Menon for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by the tenant
F
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Tamil Nadu. By
the aforesaid judgment the Hi~h Court upheld the landlord's con-
tention of bona fide requirement of the premises in question for the
business of his sons and maintained the order of eviction passed by the
courts below. So far as the question of bona fide need is concerned it
has been upheld by the courts below and that finding is not assailed
G before us. But what was contended was that the application itself
under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act was not maintain-
able. as the requirement of the land was not for the landlord or mem-
bers of his family as such but for two sons who were running a leather
business in partnership with strangers. The deed of partnership was
H examined by the High Court but it is, however, not before us. It
).._ -
A
KRISHNAN NAIR v. GHOUSE BASHA (MUKHARJI, J.]
67
;<
appears from the evidence that previously the father and the two sons
A
used to carry on leather business from long time. The sons went into
the partnership with others and two of the sons were partners. They
jointly hold half the shares. From the evidence it appears that the sons
used to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.