Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.K. Mitter, K.N. Wanchoo and Vashishtha Bhargava

JUDGMENT

K.N. Wanchoo, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A suit was brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) against the appellant and three others in the Court of Judge Small Causes at Ahmedabad under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, No. LVII OF 1947. The case of the respondents was that the three persons who were defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the chief of the premises while the present appellant who has defendant No. 4 was their sub-tenants. The respondents had given notice to the tenants-in-chief terminating the tenancy and asked them to vacate the premises from after November 30, 1956, which was the end of the month of tenancy. The suit was filed on March 1, 1957 and was based on two grounds, namely, (1) that the rent had not been paid for six months, and (2) that there had been unlawful sub-letting by the tenants-in-chief to the appellant. The suit was resisted by the three tenants-in-chief. One of them took the defence that the premises had been taken by a firm at a time when it consisted of the three defendants. But later defendant No. 1 no longer remained a partner of the firm and had nothing to do with the premises and the suit against him was not maintainable. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contended that the rent claimed (i.e., Rs. 26) was excessive and prayed that standard rent should be fixed for the premises. These defendants further said that defendant No. 1 was no longer a partner of the firm and that in his place defendant No. 4 (i.e., the present appellant) had become partner. Thus defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied that there was any sub-letting, unlawful or otherwise, to the appellant. It was further stated that the rent due had been deposited on the first date of hearing and in consequence there were no arrears due to the respondent. The appellant also filed a written-statement. He denied that he was a sub-tenant but his case was that the entire interest of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the business with the interest in the premises had been transferred to him and he was thus the tenant of the respondents and not a sub-tenants. How further said that the arrears of rent had been paid into court and thus there were no arrears due to the respondents.

2. On these pleadings, the trial court framed four issues. The first issue was whether defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were in arrears and it was held that they were not in arrears. The second issue was about the standard rent of the premises and the trial court held that it was the same as the contractual rent, namely, Rs. 26 per mensem. The third issue was whether defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had sub-let the premises and fourth issue was whether there was an assignment in favour of the present appellant by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 of their interest. The trial court held that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had sub-let the premises to the present appellant and did not accept the contention of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 about partnership or of the appellant about assignment. Finally the trial court held on the basis of the amendment of the Act in 1959 that there could be no eviction. It therefore dismissed the suit against all the four defend........