SHAH PHOOLCHAND LALCHAND versus PARVATHI BAI

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 02-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAH PHOOLCHAND LALCHAND 
v. 
PARVATHI BAI 
FEBRUARY 2, 1989 
[M.H. KANIA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136---Contention that part-
ners of a firm not made parties by landlord in eviction proceeding-
Such a contention-Whether could be raised at special leave stage. 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: 
Section 10(2)(ii)(a)-Unlawful sub-letting-Eviction on that ground-
Whether partners of the firm are to be made parties to such eviction 
petition. 
The appellants are tenants of the premises belonging to the 
Respondent, and have been carrying on business as a partnership firm 
in the said premises. The respondent tiled an eviction petition against 
the appellant firm and another firm, on the ground that the appellant 
had unlawfully and without the consent of the Respondent sub-let the 
premises to the other firm. The Trial Court passed a decree for evic-
tion, against which the appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate 
Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld 
the finding of unlawful sub-letting by the appellants. The appellants 
preferred a Civil Revision petition before the High Court, which was 
also dismissed. The present appeal by special leave is against the High 
Court's decision. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that since the 
eviction petition had been tiled without joining the partners of the other 
firm (the sub-tenant) the eviction petition was not maintainable at all. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. The objection that the eviction petition was tiled 
G 
-~ 
against the appellants-firm and the other firm, was not maintainable as 
it had been tiled without joining any of the partners of the said other 
firm as respondents or serving them as partners, had not been raised at 
all till the stage of special leave and it is not open to the appellants to 
raise such an objection at a very late stage and thereby delay matters 
for a number of years. [419F; 420C] 
H 
417 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
Chhotelal Py are/a/, the partnership firm and others v. Shikhar-
chand, [1985] l S.C.R. 268, distinguished. 
2. There is evidence to show that the other firm was carrying on 
business at the said premises and that the said firm carried on 
business in the said premises even for some time durin.g which the 
appellants-firm had ceased to carry on the business there. Moreover, 
although a notice was given by the respondent to the appellants and the 
other firm to produce their income-tax returns, assessment orders as 
well as acconnt books and ledgers for the relevant period, these were 
not produced. It was open to the Trial Court, from these circums-
tances, to come to the conclusion that had the account books and ledgers 
been produced, they would have shown that rent was received by the 
appellants from the other firm which would justify the finding of sub-
letting. [4200-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1347 
of 1981 
From the judgment and Order dated 24.1.1981 of the Madras 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 44 of 1981. 
B.N. Nayar, T.V.S.N. Chari, K. Srinivasan, C.H. Badri Nath, 
R.K. Gupta and Ms. Sudha Srivastava for the Appellants. 
U .R. Lalit and Ambrish Kumar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KANIA, J. This is an appeal filed by Special Leave under Article 
136 of the Constitution by the appellants who are the tenants against 
the respondent-landlady. 
The appellants are a partnership firm and are the tenants of 
premises situate at No. 6 Kasi Chetty Street, G.T. Madras. They carry 
on business there. The respondent filed an eviction petition being 
H.R.C. No. 641of1975 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras against 
the appellants and one other partnership firm, carrying on business in 
the name and style of M/s. Adeshwar Glass Mart on the ground that 
the appellants had unlawfully and without the consent of the respon-
dent sublet the said shop let out to the said M/s. Adeshwar Glass Mart 
and were liable to be evicted for unlawful subletting under the provi-
sion of Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and 
~ 
i
)"• 
+
l 
""' 
·+.. 
+ 
PHOOLCHAND v. PARVATHI BAI [KANIA, J.] 
419 
Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rent 
Act"). M/s. Adeshwar Glass Mart were also joined by the respondent 
herein as respondents in the eviction petition on the ground that they 
were unla

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