The simple case set up by the appellants before the Rent Controller is that the original tenant firm Bhumi Kalpataru had sub let the suit premises without the sanction of the landlords and the sub tenants carried on the business under the name Shri Bhumi Kalpataru by prefixing companymonly used Shri to the original tenant firm Bhumi Kalpataru.
The facts leading to filing of this appeal lie in a very narrow companypass.
The original tenant firm Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner, Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari though duly served, did number enter their appearance and chose to remain absent throughout.
The appellants preferred Review Petition under clause 21 2 a of the Rent Control Order challenging the orders of the appellate authority and the said Review Petition was allowed restoring the order of the Rent Controller granting permission as prayed for by the appellants.
1206 of 1995 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur challenging the order of the reviewing authority.
The present occupiers of the suit premises being the sub tenant, namely the respondent No.1 firm Shri Bhumi Kalpataru, its Managing Partner, respondent No.2 and other partners, respondents 5 to 7 were duly impleaded as party respondents.
It was also their case that there was disruption of relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the original tenant.
The application was resisted by respondents No.1, 2, 5, 6 7 inter alia companytending that they were recognized as the tenants of the suit premises by the landlords by accepting rent amount from Shri Bhumi Kalpataru.
1206 of 1996 by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby the High Court set aside the order dated 6.9.1995 passed by the reviewing authority granting permission under clause 13 3 iii of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order .
The appellate authority, however, on the appeal filed by the respondents, reversed the findings of sub tenancy.
The other partners were impleaded as respondents.
Hence this appeal.
Shri Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner Jagdish Champalal Mundhada filed Writ Petition No.
The appellants are the landlords of the suit premises.
The Rent Controller upon appreciation of the material available on record passed the necessary orders upholding the plea of sub tenancy and granted permission under clause 13 3 iii of the Rent Control Order.
Respondent No.
The appellants filed an application under clause 13 3 i iii iv and vi of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller, Amravati against the original tenant Messrs Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari, the respondent No.4 since died on the ground that Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari dissolved the firm and clandestinely sub let the suit premises to respondent No.2 Jagdish Champalal Mundhada who deceptively gave similar name to the partnership by prefixing the word Shri and it was known as Shri Bhumi Kalpataru resembling the firm to whom the premises was let out in the year 1974.
4, Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari was inducted as a tenant in the year 1974 who companystituted a partnership firm under the name and style Bhumi Kalpataru companysisting of five partners and carried on business till 1991.
SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20th September, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.
