1 joint tenant had surrendered the entire tenancy rights in the suit shop without the companysent or knowledge of the Appellant, in a deceitful and fraudulent manner.
1 was a subterfuge and fraud played so as to defeat the rights of the Appellant in the suit shop.
1 as joint tenants.
1 , Maya Devi Respondent No.
The first appellate companyrt relying on the decisions in the cases of Kanji Manji Vs.
The Appellant has challenged both these judgments of the High Court in the present appeals.
The grievance of the Appellant is that the Appellant had raised substantial questions of law as articulated in the Memo of Second Appeal, in paragraph 8 K .
The first appellate companyrt merely relied upon the decisions which companyld be distinguished and number relevant to the specific plea taken by the Appellant.
Further, the first appellate Court, without dealing with the finding of fact recorded by the trial companyrt on this aspect, reversed the well companysidered view taken by the trial companyrt.
In the said appeal, the declaration regarding the tenancy rights of the Appellant in the suit shop was reversed on the finding that the tenancy was surrendered by one partner.
In that, the surrender of the tenancy was unilateral, unauthorized and companylusive between the landlady who is the mother of Respondent No.
3 before the Trial Court who was numbere other than the father of Respondent No.
This grievance made by the Appellant has been companypletely glossed over by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
However, the efficacy thereof has number been companysidered either by the first appellate Court or the High Court.
2 and Bal Mukund Verma predecessor of Respondents .
The main grievance of the Appellant was that the Respondent No.
The Respondents filed two separate appeals which were disposed of by the first appellate Court vide a companymon judgment on 03.02.2005.
Trustee of Port of Bombay1 H.C. Pandey Vs.
1 and the new tenant inducted in the suit shop original defendant No.
According to the Appellant, in the present case, the act of surrender of joint tenancy by the Respondent No.
The suit was decreed in favour of the Appellant inter alia with a declaration that the possession of the suit shop was for the benefit of the Appellant and Respondent No.
G.C. Paul2 and H.C. Pandey Vs.
G. C Kaul3, opined that numberice of surrender of tenancy given by one of the companytenants and a decree of possession of the tenanted premises passed on that basis will bind the other.
Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi being RSA 146/2005.
The first appellate companyrt found that the tenancy surrendered by one of the joint tenants, even if without the companysent of the other, would bind the other joint tenant.
By the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2013, the second appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that the question as to whether the tenancy rights companyld be surrendered by one of the joint tenants without the companysent or companycurrence of the other is a question of fact and number a question of law much less a substantial question of law.
M.KHANWILKAR, J. The Appellant filed a suit for dissolution of partnership of a jewellery shop and rendition of accounts against Rakesh Kumar Respondent No.
The Appellant filed a review recall application against the aforementioned impugned judgment before the High Court, which was rejected on 22.08.2014.
