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, failing to project a valid defense. The defense initially suggested a partnership since 1995, then shifted to a proprietary business with a name change, and later introduced a third facet claiming partnership between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 in the name of Defendant No.2. Furthermore, the execution of a deed of partnership could not be proved during the trial, and there was no registration for the alleged deed. Evidence showed VAT and GST registration numbers in the name of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart were in the name of Defendant No.3 as proprietor, and Defendant No.3 admitted paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to Defendant No.1. The Court found that exclusivity of possession and payment of rent were conclusively proved for establishing subletting. The conveyance deed's mention of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary was clarified as referring to occupants, not tenants, especially since rent receipts remained in the original tenant's name. Consequently, the act of unauthorized subletting was conclusively established, and no interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts was warranted. The revision application was rejected, and the prayer for continuation of stay on decree execution was also denied due to the applicants' conduct and the conclusive findings.

Facts

The applicants, Ambavi Raghu Patel and another, challenged a decree passed by the Small Causes Court, confirmed by its Appellate Bench, which dismissed their appeal. 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 grounds of unauthorized subletting. The applicants are associated with M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart. The trial court decreed the suit based on unauthorized subletting. The applicants filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the appellate court's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the pleadings filed by the defendants presented a valid defense against the claim of unauthorized subletting, considering the contradictory statements regarding partnership and proprietorship of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart (turning on the interpretation of the written statement and subsequent amendments). 2. Whether the execution of a deed of partnership could be proved during the trial, and if the lack of registration and other evidence conclusively established unauthorized subletting (turning on evidence presented regarding partnership and business operations). 3. Whether the conveyance deed executed in favor of the plaintiff in 2006, which listed M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary, implied acceptance of the firm as the tenant, thereby negating the subletting claim (turning on the interpretation of the conveyance deed and Annexure-C). Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that the conveyance deed in 2006 reflected M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary as a partnership firm and the real tenant, implying the plaintiff's acceptance. They relied on the conveyance deed to demonstrate this. Contentions of the Respondent (Landlord): The respondent argued that the pleadings were self-contradictory, the partnership deed could not be proved, and VAT/GST registrations were in the name of the third defendant as proprietor. They also clarified that Annexure-C of the conveyance deed covered occupants, not just tenants, and that rent receipts remained in the name of the original tenant.