Summary
The landlord was carrying on leather business in which his two sons used to take active part. Thereafter they went into a partnership with others to carry on the business and jointly held half the shares. The landlord needed the demised premises bona fide for the business of his sons. The High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the courts below.
In the appeal, it was contended for the appellant that an application for eviction under s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was liable to be dismissed solely on the ground 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.Dismissing the appeal,^HELD: If the deed of partnership excludes the 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 needed directly or substantially for his occupation by way of his business. [68A]D.N. Sanghavi & Sons v. Ambalal Tribhuvan Das, [1974] 3SCR 55, applied.Shantilal Thamordas & Ors. v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telware, [1977] 1 SCR 341, distinguished.Partnership is a compendious way of describing those who constitute 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 66actually carried on the business the position perhaps would have been entirely different. If the same were only sleeping partners that would 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]See the full content of this document
Extract
Krishnan Nair & Anr. Etc. VS. Ghouse Basha
PETITIONER: KRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC.Vs.RESPONDENT: GHOUSE BASHADATE OF JUDGMENT08/09/1987BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)OZA, G.L. (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 2199 1988 SCR (1) 65 1987 SCC (4) 404 JT 1987 (3) 588 1987 SCALE (2)572CITATOR INFO : RF 1992 SC2166 (4)ACT: Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent C...
See the full content of this document