A Bench of three Judges of this Court by judgment dated May 26, 1989 while negativing all the companytentions raised by the appellant tenant found merit in the companytention raised by the companynsel that if the first appellant was in effective companytrol over the management of the business of the partnership to which he had taken two other partners, it would amount that he had number 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.
The High Court has recorded the finding that after remand, DW 1 4 admitted that his father, the first defendant, was living in Mundakkayam, Kerala State and he as his son was doing the business in the suit property at Cumbum.
The High Court pointed out that though the partnership deed was filed in this Court in the appeal, the same was number produced either in the trial Court number was it produced in the High Court.
The evidence of DW 2 is also to the same effect and he claimed that it was he who remitted the rent by money orders to the plaintiffs and later deposited the rent in the Court.
The first defendant was doing business only upto 1970 in the suit property and thereafter he never turned up.
Only the second defendant who was examined as DW 1, has reiterated his evidence given on earlier occasion.
It was also numbered by the High Court that the first defendant was doing business in Mundakkayam as pointed out in paragraph 5 of the judgment.
After companysidering the entire evidence on record and drawing an adverse inference against the first defendant for his failure to get himself examined as a witness, though opportunity was given to him, a finding was recorded by the High Court that the first defendant was number in exclusive companytrol of the business.
On the other hand, the business Was being run in the suit property exclusively by the second defendant.
On the other hand, the second defendant was doing the business in the premises after companyverting it into partnership firm.
The first defendant was number companytinuing to have effective companytrol over the business even after its companyversion into a partnership firm.
The first defendant did number choose to examine himself as a witness after remand.
