V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Sarai Smt. Ganeshi Devi, Gaushala Bazar, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter described as ‘the petitioner’) directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dated 23.8.1979 and of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur dated, 22.12.1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
2. The sole surviving ground for eviction pressed was as to if the property in question had been sublet by the tenant or not? The relevant facts are that petitioner filed the eviction petition with respect to the suit premises. The property was stated to have been let out by one Charanji Lal and then Manager to M/s Kundan Lal Ram Parkash. It was alleged that the property has been sublet and new partners are running the business in the said property though in the name of M/s Kundan Lal Ram Parkash. The petition for eviction was contested. It was denied that the suit property has been sublet. The respondents explained that the suit property had been let out to the firm M/s Kundan Lal Ram Parkash. Two of the original partners of the firm retired and one died. Originally, the partners were Bhagwan Dass and his three sons Kundan Lal, Sat Pal and Ram Parkash. Sat Pal and Ram Parkash retired. A new firm in the same name continued with Bhagwan Dass and his son Kundan Lal. Bhagwan Dass also died. Kundan Lal, who was originally the partner of the firm had started a new partnership with other, namely, Brij Kishore son of Kundan Lal. It was in this process denied that there was subletting of the suit premises.
3. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and recorded that property in question has not been sublet. The appeal preferred was dismissed. It was held that there was no subletting of the property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. The findings of fact recorded are that the firm M/s Kundan Lal Ram Parkash had four partners namely, Bhagwan Dass, Kundan Lal, Sat Pal and Ram Parkash. Kundan Lal continued still to be a partner in the new firm, while the other partners either had died or retired from the partnership. When such is the position, the sole question agitated was as to if it would amount to subletting of the property or not.
5. The law is well settled that partnership is nothing that an association of persons. It is a compendious way of describing the partnership or the association. When one of the partners is in existence and in legal possession, then it cannot be inferred that property as such has been sublet.
6. Reference in this connection can well be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Punjab-Rajasthan Goods Carrier and Ors. v. Onkar Mai and Anr., (1976)78 P.L.R. 364. In the cited case it was held that when a third person enters into partnership with the tenant, then he does not become a tenant therein. The original tenant after the agreement of partnership shall be deemed to be in possession of the premises. The principle as such cannot be controverted and the inference would be that when one of the original partner is in existence and in possession, then it cannot be termed that he has sublet the property.
7. In the case of Tribhavan v. Chander Bhan and Anr., 1978(2) Rent Law Reporter 405, the partnership was carrying on the business. The rent note was executed by one partner. It was held that even when the working partner leaves the partnership, it will not amount to subletting.
8. More close to the facts of the present case is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Murli Dhar v. Chuni Lal and Ors., 1969 Rent Control Reporter 563. In the cited case the premises were let out to a firm namely Chuni Lal Gherulal. It comprised of three partners. The business of the partnership was closed for some time. After some time the shop was used by a new firm by the name of Mehgraj Bansidhar. Meghraj was a partner of the new firm. The question that came up for consideration was as to whether it would amount to subletting or not. It was rejected and held:
“It seems to us that the landlord cannot succeed. He has to prove it as a fact that there was a sub-letting by his tenant to another person. He does not prove this merely by showing that his tenant was one firm and the premises are in the occupation of another firm, as he sought to do in the present case. Mere possession by somebody other than the tenant would not necessarily prove that the premises had been sublet by the tenant to the person in possession. It is admitted that there is no evidence In this case to prove the fact of sub-letting. In this case in particular, the premised continued in possession of one of the original tenants, Meghraj. It may be, as the learned counsel for the appellant said, that the attention of the Courts below had not been directed to the fact in issue, namely, the proof of subletting. If that was so, the fault was that of his client, the landlord; he cannot now claim any relief on that ground. As we have said, it is admitted that the evidence does not establish that there was any subletting by the tenant. There was nothing to prevent the landlord from leading evidence to establish that if it was a fact. If he has misconducted his case as he says, he must take the consequences.”
The position in the present case as referred to above is identical. One of the original -tenant is in possession of the property. If he has formed a new partnership, then it does not amount to stating that the property has been sublet. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere.
9. For these reasons, the revision petition must fails and is dismissed.