1 was numberlonger a partner of the firm and that in his place defendant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 17, 18, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
1 to 3 had sub let the premises to the present appellant and did number accept the companytention of defendants Nos.
These defendants further said that defendant No.
Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
He denied that he was a sub tenant but his case was that the entire interest of defendants Nos.
The suit was resisted by the three tenants in chief.
1 to 3 in the business along with the interest in the premises had been transferred to him and he was thus the tenant of the respondents and number a sub tenant, He further said that the arrears of rent had been paid into companyrt and thus there were numberarrears due to the respondents.
26 per mensem.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is In appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
4 i.e., the present appellant had become partner.
The first issue was whether defendants Nos.
2 and 3 on the other hand companytended that the rent claimed i.e., Rs.
1 to 3 were the tenants in chief of the premises while the present appellant who was defendant No.
4 was their sub tenant.
It was further stated that the rent due had been deposited on the first date of hearing and in companysequence there were numberarrears due to the respondents.
The third issue was whether defendants Nos.
The respondents then went in appeal against the dismissal of the suit so far as eviction was companycerned.
It further said that the amount of rent had been deposited by the tenants in companyrt and should be taken away by the respondents with the rider that in case the amount fell short the respondents would be at liberty to recover the deficiency if any from the person and property of the tenants in chief.
Purshottam Trikamdas and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.,
1 to 3 of their interest.
It further ordered the tenants in chief to pay rent from September 1, 1956 upto date at the rate of Rs.
The case of the respondents was that the other three persons who were defendants Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No, 695 of 1965.
One of them took the defence that the premises had been taken by a firm at a time when it companysisted of the three defendants.
But later defendant No.
The suit was filed on March 1, 1957 and was based on two grounds, namely, i that the rent had number been paid for six months, and ii that there had been unlawful sub letting by the tenants in chief to the appellant.
1 to 3 had sublet the premises and the fourth issue was whether there was an assignment in favour of the present appellant by defendants Nos.
26 was excessive and prayed that standard rent should be fixed for the premises.
The second issue was about the standard rent of the premises and the trial companyrt held that it was the same as the companytractual rent, namely, Rs.
1 to 3 were in arrears and it was held that they were number in arrears.
1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as the respondents against the appellant and three Others in the Court of Judge Small Causes at Ahmedabad, under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents.
To this appeal the three tenants in chief and the appellant were made parties, and the main companytention of the respondents in the appellate companyrt was that the suit for eviction should have been decreed both on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground of sub letting.
The appellant also filed a written statement.
2 and 3 denied that there was any sub letting, unlawful or otherwise, to the appellant.
The High Court then went on to companysider the question whether arrears of rent were due from the tenants in chief and held in spite of the companycurrent finding on this question of the two companyrts that the tenants in chief were in arrears and were liable to ejectment under the Act and if so, the appellant who was a sub tenant would have to go with them.
1 and 2.
LVII of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
26 per mensem.
Thus defendants Nos.
A suit was brought by respondents Nos.
On these pleadings, the trial companyrt framed four issues.
Defendants Nos.
430 of 1961.
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, No.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, G. L. Sanghi and B. R. Agar wala, for respondents Nos.
The respondents had given numberice to the tenants in chief terminating the tenancy and asked them to vacate the premises from after November 30, 1956, which was the end of the month of tenancy.
1 numberlonger remained a partner of the firm and had numberhing to do with the premises and the suit against him was number maintainable.
