The original tenant set up the defence that he had number sublet the suit premises or any portion thereof, but had only entered into an agreement to run business on his behalf and he was number liable to be evicted.
The original tenant died on 8.1.1983 and his legal representatives were brought on record.
Respondent No.1 was impleaded as a defendant on an application made by him.
They filed a written statement on 1.8.1984 companytending that their father had parted with possession of the suit premises to respondent No.1 and numberdecree companyld be passed against them.
Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the said decree in the High Court.
199 and 200 situated at Brigade Road in Bangalore city for recovery of possession thereof on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent and had sublet the same companytrary to law.
By a decree made on 31.3.1993, the City Civil Court directed the eviction of the first respondent.
His tenancy had number been terminated and, therefore, there was numbercause for suit.
If number, what is his status?
He companytended that he had become a partner with Bhaskaran with the companysent of the appellants and partnership stood dissolved as on 10.12.1982 and thus he was a tenant under the appellant directly.
Rajendra Babu, J. The appellant filed a suit against Bhaskaran, the original tenant in occupation of a premises bearing No.
