P.A.THOMAS AND ANR. versus M. MOHAMMED TAJUDDIN AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 19-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.A. THOMAS AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
M. MOHAMMED TAJUDDIN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922: 
Section 2(4)(ii)(a)-Tenant-Open land let out to defendant in tlze C 
suit-He converted his individual business into a partnership business-Not 
having control over the property-Held : He had sublet the prope1ty to the 
partnership Jinn and thereby contravened the conditions of leas~Hence 
liable for ejectment-Decree of ejectment granted by trial Court and affinned 
by High Court-Not vitiated by any en-<?r of law wa1Ta11ti11g i11te1ference. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.87 of the Madras High 
Court in S.A. No 1706 and C.R.P. No. 3135 of 1985. 
E 
Ms. Seira Vidyalingem for the Appellants. 
K.R. Chowdhary for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A Bench of three Judges of this Court by judgment dated May 26, 
1989 while negativing all the contentions raised by the appellant-tenant 
found merit in the contention raised by the counsel that if the first appel-
F 
lant was in effective control over the management of the business of the 
partnership to which he had taken two other partners, it would amount that G 
he had not sublet the premises and that he would be "a tenant" within the 
meaning of sub-clause (a) of Clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 2 of 
the Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922. 
Sub-section ( 4) of Section 2 defines the terms "tenant" in relation to 
any land. Clause (i) thereof runs as follows : 
H 
523 
A 
B 
c 
D 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
"(i) means a person liable to pay rent in ·respect of such land, under 
a tenancy agreement express or implied". 
Sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of sub-section ( 4) of Section 2 of the said 
Act runs as follows : 
"(a) any such person as is referred to in sub-clause (i) who 
continues in possession of the land after the determination of the 
tenancy agreement." 
The relevant part of sub-clause (b) of the said clause runs as follows: 
"(b) any person who was a tenant in respect of such land under a 
tenancy agreement to which this Act is applicable under sub-sec-
tion (3) of Section 1 and who or any of his predecessors in interest 
had erected any building on such land and who continues in actual 
physical possession of such land and building, notwithstanding that 
Since there is no evidence on this issue this Court thought that a 
finding was required to be given by the High Court and if required, the 
matter may be sent to the trial court for recording the evidence for 
submission thereof to the High Court. In furtherance thereof, the High 
E Court remitted the matter to the trial court for recording further evidence 
afresh which was adduced. 
After consideration of the evidence, the High Court noted that in 
paragraph 8 of the plaint it is stated that the business of the first defendant 
p 
was converted into a partnership in name and style of "P.A. Thomas and 
Co." taking the second defendant who was looking after the business and 
another as partners. The averment that the second defendant was looking 
after the business was not specifically denied in the written statement. 
Therefore, no issue was raised in that behalf. The first defendant was not 
continuing to have effective control over the business even after its conver-
G sion into a partnership firm. The High Court pointed out that though the 
partnership deed was filed in this .Court in the appeal, the same was not 
produced either in the trial Court; nor was it produced in the High Court. 
The first defendant did not choose to examine himself as a witness after 
remand. Only the second defendant who was examined as DW-1, has 
H reiterated his evidence given on earlier occasion. The first defendant was 
... 
.-
PA THOMAS v. M.MOHD. TAJUDDIN 
525 
doing business only upto 1970 in the suit property and thereafter he never A 
turned up. On the other hand, the business was being run in the suit 
property exclusively by the second defendant. It was also noted by the High 
Court that the first defendant was doing business in Mundakkayam as 
pointed out in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The High Court has recorded 
the finding that after remand, DW-1 admitted that his father, the first 
defendant, was living in Mundakkayam, Kerala State and he as his son was 
doing the business

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