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 against the claim of unauthorized subletting. Specifically, the initial written statement suggested Defendant No. 2 was a partner since 1995, while also claiming Defendant No. 1 ran a proprietary business later renamed M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart. After amendment, Defendant No. 3 claimed he was a partner with Defendant No. 1, running the business in the name of Defendant No. 2. The Court found that the execution of a deed of partnership could not be proved, and there was no registration for the alleged partnership. Evidence showed VAT and GST registrations for M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart were in Defendant No. 3's name as proprietor, and Defendant No. 3 admitted paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to Defendant No. 1, establishing exclusivity of possession and rent payment. The Court dismissed the argument based on the conveyance deed, noting it listed M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary as an occupant, not a tenant, and rent receipts remained in the original tenant's name. The concurrent findings of unauthorized subletting by both lower courts were upheld.

Facts

The applicants, Ambavi Raghu Patel and another, are challenging a decree passed by the Small Causes Court, confirmed by its Appellate Bench, which ordered the recovery of suit premises. The suit was filed by M/s. Isha Homes Pvt. Ltd. (landlord) against the original tenant, Shri S. N. Mehta (Defendant No. 1), and M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart (Defendant No. 2). The ground for recovery was unauthorized subletting. The applicants, who are associated with Defendant No. 2, contested the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, finding unauthorized subletting. The applicants' appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Bench. This revision application is filed 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, particularly regarding the nature of the business relationship between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 (Ambavi Raghu Patel) and the entity M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary Mart, presented a valid defense against the claim of unauthorized subletting under the relevant tenancy laws? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants, through their counsel, argued that the plaintiff's conveyance deed executed in 2006 reflected the name of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary as a tenant, implying the plaintiff's acceptance of this entity as the real tenant. They contended that this indicated the business was operating as a partnership firm. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel argued that the pleadings were self-contradictory, failing to establish a valid defense. They further contended that the conveyance deed's recital clarified that the mention of M/s. Jai Jalaram Stationary was in the capacity of an occupant, not a tenant, and that rent receipts continued to be in the name of the original tenant, Shri S. N. Mehta.