Ambavi Raghu Patel, Proprietor Of Jai Jalaram Stationery Mart And Anr. vs. M/S. Ish Homes Private Limited And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the pleadings filed by the defendants were self-contradictory and did not project any valid defense. Specifically, the defense shifted between claims of partnership and proprietorship of the business in the suit premises. The Court further held that the execution of a deed of partnership could not be proved during the trial, and there was no registration for the alleged partnership. Evidence showed that VAT and GST registration numbers in the name of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart were in the name of the applicant (Ambavi Raghu Patel) as proprietor. The applicant also admitted to paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the original tenant. The Court concluded that these facts conclusively proved the exclusivity of possession and payment of rent, establishing the act of subletting. The Court noted that the rent receipts continued in the name of the first defendant, not M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary. The Court also found that the mention of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary in the Conveyance Deed was in the capacity of an occupant, not a tenant. Given the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench, the Court found no interference warranted in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction.

Facts

The applicants, Ambavi Raghu Patel and another, filed a revision application challenging a decree passed by the Small Causes Court, confirmed by its Appellate Bench. The original suit was filed by M/s. Isha Homes Pvt. Ltd. (landlord) against Shri S. N. Mehta (tenant) and M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart for recovery of suit premises on the ground of unauthorized subletting. The applicants are associated with M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart. The trial court decreed the suit, finding unauthorized subletting. The applicants' defense involved contradictory claims regarding partnership and proprietorship of the business in the suit premises. The execution of a partnership deed could not be proved, and VAT and GST registrations were in the name of the applicant as proprietor. The applicant also admitted paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the original tenant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the pleadings filed by the defendants (applicants) presented a valid defense against the landlord's claim of unauthorized subletting, considering the contradictory statements regarding the nature of the business and the role of the defendants (Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1999, and principles of tenancy law). 2. Whether the act of unauthorized subletting was conclusively proved by the plaintiff (respondent landlord), particularly in light of the contradictory defenses, the failure to prove a partnership deed, and the evidence of VAT/GST registration and rent payment by the applicant. Petitioner's Arguments (Applicants): The applicants, through their counsel, argued that the landlord had accepted M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary as the tenant, citing its reflection in a Conveyance Deed executed in 2006. They contended that this indicated the landlord's recognition of the firm as the actual tenant. Revenue/State's Arguments (Respondent Landlord): The respondent landlord argued that the defendants' pleadings were self-contradictory, failing to establish a valid defense. They further contended that the execution of a partnership deed could not be proved, and that VAT and GST registrations in the applicant's name as proprietor, along with the admitted payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month, conclusively proved unauthorized subletting. They also clarified that the mention of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary in the Conveyance Deed was in the capacity of an occupant, not a tenant.