Structured Summary of Opinion — Kapur, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a landlord's revision seeking eviction of a tenant. The material facts and procedural history, as set out in the opinion, are:

• Originally the premises were let to Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal. That firm was originally a joint Hindu family firm and at some time after 1943 was converted into a contractual partnership consisting of Radhe Lal and his son.
• The premises in dispute were taken by Radhe Lal and the rent was paid by and in the name of Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal; the trial Court held that this firm must be taken to be the tenant, a finding the High Court agreed with.
• Some time later it is alleged that Mangal Sen became a partner with Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal and a partnership called Radhe Lal & Sons was started. That firm is alleged to have dissolved in 1943. Since then, it is alleged, Mangal Sen has carried on business in the premises under the name Lahori Mal-Mir Singh.
• It is admitted (or treated as proved) that up to 1943 rent was paid by Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal; after the alleged dissolution up to 4 April 1945 rent continued to be paid in the name of Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal, though Mangal Sen claimed he was actually paying the money — a fact denied by the landlord, Ram Nath.
• On 1 September 1946 the landlord gave notice under section 9 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act to the tenants seeking eviction on three grounds: (1) subletting without consent; (2) user for a purpose other than that for which premises were let; and (3) tenants not ready and willing to pay rent.
• The suit was decreed by Mr. Kirpa Ram, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, but that decree was reversed on appeal by Mr. Tek Chand Vijh, Senior Subordinate Judge. The landlord brought a revision to the High Court.
• By preliminary objection the respondents contended that the revision was not properly stamped; the Court held that the memorandum of revision was correctly stamped (stamp of Rs. 4) and overruled the objection.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there has been a contravention of section 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act by assignment, subletting or otherwise parting with possession of the whole of the premises without the landlord's consent.
2. Whether the change of user from manufacture of buttons (the original user) to manufacture of thread balls constitutes a perversion of user covered by section 9(1)(b)(f) (user for a purpose other than that for which premises were let).
3. Whether non-payment of rent (arrears) and the tenant's failure to pay or deposit rent as provided for in the relevant provisions (including reference to section 9(1) of the Rent Restrictions Act) constitutes a ground for eviction under section 9(1)(a).
4. Whether the strict English rule (that an assignment by one partner of his undivided moiety to another partner is a breach of covenant) applies to the landlord-tenant relationship in India, and if so, whether it affects the present facts.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's / Landlord's Arguments

• The landlord alleged that Radhe Lal (or Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal) sublet the premises to Mangal Sen who operates under the name Lahori Mal-Mir Singh, without consent.
• The landlord contended that the premises were being used for a purpose different from that for which they were let (conversion from button manufacture to thread-ball manufacture).
• The landlord alleged tenants were not ready and willing to pay rent; rent had not been paid by Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal up to 4 October 1946 for about eighteen months.
• In response to the respondents' procedural attack, the landlord (through counsel) argued that the revision was correctly stamped under the Rules made by the Court under section 14(2) of the Act; the Court agreed and overruled the stamping objection.
• The petitioner's counsel relied on English authority (Varely v. Coppard) to argue that assignment by a partner to another can be a breach of covenant (i.e., ground for eviction) but the Court ultimately found that strict English rule need not be followed in India.

Respondents' / Defendants' Arguments

• Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 (Radhe Lal and Mangal Sen) pleaded that Radhe Lal and Mangal Sen were carrying on business under the name and style of Badri Dass Radhe Lal and that the business (manufacture of thread balls) was being carried on in the premises.
• They asserted that on dissolution the assets of the firm came to Mangal Sen's share and he was entitled to carry on business in these premises — therefore there was no subletting, assignment or parting with possession.
• They relied on documentary material such as a certified copy of an Income Tax assessment order (Exhibit D.36) mentioning a dissolution, although that order related to the firm Radhe Lal & Sons, not expressly to Firm Badri Dass Radhe Lal; no account books were produced to prove partnership or that the business of Radhe Lal & Sons was carried on in these premises.
• Respondents contested the landlord's claim that Mangal Sen actually paid rent; the landlord denied such payments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeds in a series of factual findings and legal applications tied to the statutory grounds for eviction under section 9 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act:

1. Preliminary procedural point: The Court considered and overruled the preliminary objection that the revision was not properly stamped, holding the memorandum of revision was correctly stamped with Rs. 4 because the revision was brought under rules made by the Court under the Rule making power conferred by section 14(2) of the Act.
2. Tenancy and payment history: The Court accepted the trial Court's finding that the tenancy was in favour of Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal. Evidence showed rent was paid either by that firm or in that firm's name up to at least 4 April 1945. The landlord consistently accepted rent and gave receipts in that firm's name and had refused to accept anybody else as tenant.
3. On the allegation of subletting/assignment (section 9(1)(b)(ii)): The defendants claimed partnership relationships (conversion to Radhe Lal & Sons, dissolution, and Mangal Sen's entitlement to occupy). The Court examined documentary evidence and found no account-books proving that Mangal Sen was a partner in Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal or that Firm Radhe Lal & Sons carried on business in the premises. Exhibit D.36 (Income Tax assessment order) related to Radhe Lal & Sons and did not prove that firm carried on business in the premises or that Mangal Sen was a partner of the tenant firm. Given these facts and that the landlord never accepted Mangal Sen as tenant, the Court held there had been parting with possession/assignment/subletting within the meaning of section 9(1)(b)(ii).
4. On whether the English rule (assignment by partner) applies: The Court considered the submission (supported by reference to Varely v. Coppard) that the taking of another partner or an assignment within a partnership could amount to a breach. The Court declined to adopt the strict English rule in India, relying on Indian authorities (K. Devarajulu Naidu; Koragalava v. Jakri Beary) which refused to adopt that rigour. The Court therefore did not treat mere internal changes of partnership as automatically equivalent to assignment in the English sense; but on the specific facts here (the outgoing firm leaving the premises to Mangal Sen who was not shown to be a partner of the tenant firm), the act was treated as falling within s. 9(1)(b)(ii).
5. On user (section 9(1)(b)(f)): The Court found that the premises were let to a person carrying on manufacture of buttons, whereas the present occupant (Mangal Sen / Lahori Mal Mir Singh) carried on manufacture of thread balls — a different character of business. The Court held this conversion of user amounted to a perversion of user and cited its prior decision in Cement Pipe Factory v. Daulat Ram Narulla as authority for treating a change in user as a ground for eviction.
6. On non-payment of rent (section 9(1)(a) and reference to Rent Restrictions Act): The Court found that Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal had not paid rent up to 4 October 1946 for about eighteen months and had not deposited the arrears as provided by the relevant statutory provision. The landlord was not bound to accept rent from Mangal Sen. The Court held this non-payment furnished an additional ground for eviction under section 9(1)(a).
7. Composite conclusion: Weighing the absence of proof that Mangal Sen was a partner of the tenant firm, the landlord's consistent treatment of the tenant as Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal, the change of user, and arrears of rent, the Court concluded the case fell within multiple sub-clauses of section 9(1) and that the Senior Subordinate Judge had erred in law and misdirected himself on facts on appeal.
8. The Court then enumerated findings (adopted in its order) specifying the central factual and legal conclusions on which it relied (see the Holding below).

Holding and Implications

Holding (core ruling):

The petition is allowed; the rule is made absolute; the landlord is entitled to succeed on the grounds pleaded.

Implications and consequences stated in the opinion:

• The Court held specifically (as its factual and legal conclusions) that: (a) the premises were let to Firm Badri Dass-Radhe Lal; (b) whether taking another partner into Badri Dass Radhe Lal might or might not be covered by section 9(1)(b)(ii) need not be decided for present purposes; (c) Firm Radhe Lal & Sons was not proved to have carried on business in these premises; (d) nothing proved that the landlord knew of any such change; (e) the act of Firm Badri Dass Radhe Lal walking out and leaving the premises to Mangal Sen was covered by section 9(1)(b)(ii); (f) there had been a perversion of user covered by section 9(1)(b)(f); and (g) rent had not been paid despite notice and the non-payment was covered by section 9(1)(a).
• The petitioner (landlord) was awarded costs in this Court and in the Courts below.
• The direct effect on the parties: the landlord's petition for eviction succeeded and the rule was made absolute (i.e., eviction is justified on the stated statutory grounds), and the landlord was awarded costs.
• The opinion does not articulate any novel, sweeping change to precedent or law beyond applying existing statutory provisions and precedents; it expressly refuses to import the strict English rule into India and relies on prior Indian decisions and its own prior decision on perversion of user. The opinion thus applies established principles to the facts rather than announcing a new principle of law.

Order: Petition allowed.