Holding

The appellant, having sub‑let the premises to the partnership and lacking exclusive control, is not a "tenant" within the meaning of the Act and is liable for ejectment.

Summary

The appellant, P.A. Thomas, was let an open land under a lease and later converted his sole proprietorship into a partnership named 'P.A. Thomas and Co.' with his son and another partner. The Supreme Court examined whether, under Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922, the appellant remained a "tenant" or had effectively sub‑let the premises to the partnership. Evidence showed that the appellant did not retain exclusive control over the business; his son managed the premises while the appellant resided elsewhere. The Court held that the conversion to a partnership without control amounted to sub‑letting, rendering the appellant not a tenant within the statutory definition and liable for ejectment. Consequently, the decree of ejectment affirmed by the trial and High Courts was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant, after converting his individual business into a partnership, qualifies as a "tenant" under Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922.
Whether the appellant's lack of exclusive control over the premises constitutes sub‑letting in violation of lease conditions.
Whether the decree of ejectment is vitiated by any error of law.

Subjects

rent controlevictiontenancysub‑lettingpartnershiplandlord‑tenant lawTamil Nadu City Protection Act

Judgment

P.A. THOMAS AND ANR. A
v.
M. MOHAMMED TAJUDDIN AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction :

Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922:

Section 2(4)(ii)(a)-Tenant-Open land let out to defendant in tlze C
suit-He converted his individual business into a partnership business-Not
having control over the property-Held : He had sublet the prope1ty to the
partnership Jinn and thereby contravened the conditions of leas~Hence
liable for ejectment-Decree of ejectment granted by trial Court and affinned
by High Court-Not vitiated by any en-<?r of law wa1Ta11ti11g i11te1ference. D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1569 of
1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.87 of the Madras High
Court in S.A. No 1706 and C.R.P. No. 3135 of 1985. E
Ms. Seira Vidyalingem for the Appellants.

K.R. Chowdhary for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
A Bench of three Judges of this Court by judgment dated May 26,
1989 while negativing all the contentions raised by the appellant-tenant
found merit in the contention raised by the counsel that if the first appel-
lant was in effective control over the management of the business of the
partnership to which he had taken two other partners, it would amount that G
he had not 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.

Sub-section (4) of Section 2 defines the terms "tenant" in relation to
any land. Clause (i) thereof runs as follows : H
523
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A "(i) means a person liable to pay rent in ·respect of such land, under
a tenancy agreement express or implied".

Sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the said
Act runs as follows :

B "(a) any such person as is referred to in sub-clause (i) who
continues in possession of the land after the determination of the
tenancy agreement."

The relevant part of sub-clause (b) of the said clause runs as follows:
c "(b) any person who was a tenant in respect of such land under a
tenancy agreement to which this Act is applicable under sub-sec-
tion (3) of Section 1 and who or any of his predecessors in interest
had erected any building on such land and who continues in actual
physical possession of such land and building, notwithstanding that
D
Since there is no evidence on this issue this Court thought that a
finding was required to be given by the High Court and if required, the
matter may be sent to the trial court for recording the evidence for
submission thereof to the High Court. In furtherance thereof, the High
E Court remitted the matter to the trial court for recording further evidence
afresh which was adduced.

After consideration of the evidence, the High Court noted that in
paragraph 8 of the plaint it is stated that the business of the first defendant
p was converted into a partnership in name and style of "P.A. Thomas and
Co." taking the second defendant who was looking after the business and
another as partners. The averment that the second defendant was looking
after the business was not specifically denied in the written statement.
Therefore, no issue was raised in that behalf. The first defendant was not
continuing to have effective control over the business even after its conver-
G sion into a partnership firm. The High Court pointed out that though the
partnership deed was filed in this .Court in the appeal, the same was not
produced either in the trial Court; nor was it produced in the High Court.
The first defendant did not choose to examine himself as a witness after
remand. Only the second defendant who was examined as DW-1, has
H reiterated his evidence given on earlier occasion. The first defendant was
PA THOMAS v. M.MOHD. TAJUDDIN 525

doing business only upto 1970 in the suit property and thereafter he never A
turned up. On the other hand, the business was being run in the suit
property exclusively by the second defendant. It was also noted by the High
Court that the first defendant was doing business in Mundakkayam as
pointed out in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The High Court has recorded
the finding that after remand, DW-1 admitted that his father, the first
B
defendant, was living in Mundakkayam, Kerala State and he as his son was
doing the business in the suit property at Cwnbum. 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. After considering the entire evidence on record and drawing an
adverse inference against the first defendant for his failure to get himself C
examined as a witn~ss, though opportunity was given to him, a finding was
recorded by the High Court that the first defendant was not in exclusive
control of the business. On the other hand, the second defendant was doing
the business in the premises after converting it into partnership firm. This
being the finding of fact, we do not think that there is any question of law D
is involved.

In view of the definition of "tenant" and in view of the fact that the
first defendant to whom the open land was let out, had converted individual
business into a partnership business and was not having any control over
the property or the business, it can be said that he had sub-let the property E
leased out to the first defendant, to the partnership firm and thereby,
contravened the conditions of the le<J.se. Accordingly, he became liable for
ejectment. The decree of ejectment granted by the trial Court and affirmed
by the High Court was thereby not vitiated by any error of law warranting

... interference.
F
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed .

.-