He had a younger brother, Purushotham Amarsee.
Later, by an instrument dated October 30, 1943, after the retirement of certain partners and admissions of new partners, the parties thereto agreed to carry on as one single partnership the business carried on by the two partnerships companystituted under the deeds dated May 30, 1939.
About 1932, the firm started the manufacture and sale of soap.
Hence, the present appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the High Court.
Ultimately, under an agreement dated February 7, 1948 the business was taken over by a companypany with effect from November 13, 1947.
It had also started the manufacture and sale of umbrellas.
This deed further recited that the agreement dated 1918 was revoked and that the affairs of the firm would be regulated by the new agreement.
Nagjee Amarsee had a son, Jayananthan Amarsee.
The property scheduled to the rent companytrol petition was a major portion of the building which was admittedly set apart to the share of the branch of the family represented by the landlords.
The building in question was let out to the firm.
The landlords filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the respondent Nos.5,6 9 herein had companypleted their education and were sitting idle and they wanted to start business of their own in the scheduled building and they needed the scheduled building for their own occupation at Calicut.
One of the partners died and another retired, and on January 2, 1934, the remaining four partners executed an instrument varying some of the terms of the agreement of 1918 but providing however that subject to the variations the earlier agreement was to remain effective.
The firm was the tenant and later on it was companyverted into a private limited companypany.
Thereafter, on May 30, 1939, two agreements of partnership were executed of which the first recited that the manufacture and sale of soaps and umbrellas was carried on by the three partners along with a fourth partner with effect from October November, 1937 and the second deed recited that the three partners companytinue to carry on the business in banking, piece goods and yarn.
There was a partnership firm companysisting of the members of the joint family.
He had two surviving sons namely, Naranjee and Makeklal.
Gradually, the interest of the landlords in the companypany was taken over by the members of the family representing the tenants group.
Purushotham Amarsee had three sons, one of whom died at the age of 20.
In a partition, the major portion of the building was allotted to the group represented by the landlords.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the building in question was owned by a joint Hindu family of which Nagjee Amarsee was the senior most member.
K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala whereby the Division Bench by its order dated 9.11.2001 has affirmed the finding of the appellate companyrt directing eviction of the tenant under Section 11 3 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act and denying eviction to the landlord under Sections 11 4 i and 11 4 ii of the Act and dismissed both the revision petitions.
