P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, is a tenant, which is a private limited company having its business in sale of Toys and Plant seeds at various parts of the country, like, Bangalore, Madras, bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 29th of January, 1991 made in h. R. C. No. 10856 of 1987 by the learned II Additional Small cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Judge"), directing its eviction under Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 3 ) A few facts which have a bearing for the disposal of this revision petition, may be stated as hereunder. (A ). One Jabbar Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") who is the father of respondents 1 and 2 and husband of respondent-3 herein, had instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioner seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petition schedule premises, which is a non-residential premises, is reasonably and bona fide required for the purpose of his business to be carried on by him with the aid of his two sons, who are respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition. According to the landlord, he was carrying on business in Footwear on commission basis without any permanent place of business and, therefore, he purchased the petition schedule premises by means of a registered sale deed dated 26th of november, 1986 for the purpose of his business in Footwear along with his two sons. In the course of the evidence before the learned Judge, the said Jabbar Ahmed has examined himself as p. W. 1 and produced certain documents, which are marked as exhibits P-l to P-9. (B) The petitioner-tenant resisted the claim of the landlord. The Manager of the petitioner-tenant was examined as R. W. 1 and a few photographs were produced and marked as Exhibits r-1 to R-4 and certain stock statements were marked as exhibits R-5 to R-17. (C) The learned Judge has, on appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the claim made by the landlord was reasonable and bona fide. The Manager of the petitioner-tenant was examined as R. W. 1 and a few photographs were produced and marked as Exhibits r-1 to R-4 and certain stock statements were marked as exhibits R-5 to R-17. (C) The learned Judge has, on appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the claim made by the landlord was reasonable and bona fide. He has also found that if an order of eviction is not passed, the landlord will be put to greater hardship than the tenant. Accordingly, he has passed an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant. Aggrieved by the said order, as already stated, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this revision petition, the land lord-Jabbar Ahmed expired on 4th of May, 1993. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, in view of the objection raised by the petitioner-tenant that on account of the death of the landlord-Jabbar Ahmed, the claim made by the landlord does not survive for consideration, this Court, on consideration of the pleadings in the case and the evidence on record, by its order dated 31 st of March, 1997, called for a finding from the learned Judge as to whether the sons of the landlord required the petition schedule premises for their use and occupation. This Court permitted the parties to lead additional evidence. In view of the said order passed by this court, the parties adduced additional evidence. Respondents 1 and 2 herein examined themselves as P. Ws. 2 and 3. One other manager of the petitioner-tenant was also examined as R. W. 2. In the course of the evidence, on behalf of the respondents herein, certain documents were produced and marked as exhibits P-10 to P-18 and on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, a telephone Directory was produced and marked as Exhibit R-18 to show that the telephone stands in the name of Kamal Ahmed, respondent 2 herein. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, by his order dated 30th of August, 1997, found that the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bona fide required by the sons of the original landlord i. e. , respondents 1 and 2 herein. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, by his order dated 30th of August, 1997, found that the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bona fide required by the sons of the original landlord i. e. , respondents 1 and 2 herein. ( 5 ) SRI Shy am Koundinya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant, strongly urged that the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the petition schedule premises is required for the bona fide use and occupation of the respondents-1 and 2 i. e. , the sons of the landlord, is totally erroneous in law inasmuch as the said finding has been recorded in utter disregard of the evidence on record. Elaborating his submission, he pointed out that the case set up by the landlord the aforesaid Jabbar Ahmed, was that he required the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation, and in the absence of any pleading that the petition schedule premises is required for the purpose of his children, the eviction petition filed by the landlord does not survive for consideration; and the order of eviction passed against the petitioner-tenant is liable to be set aside solely on that ground. He also pointed out that the learned Judge, in his order dated 30th of August, 1997, while recording the finding that the respondents have made out a case for their bona fide use and occupation of the petition schedule premises, makes out a case that the respondents intend to start a fresh business. According to the learned Counsel, this shows that the respondents are not continuing the original business of their father. He also submitted that the finding called for by this court only related to the bona fide requirement by the sons of the landlord and that finding could be recorded only on the basis of the pleadings in the petition; and in the absence of such pleadings that the petition schedule premises was required by the children of the landlord, it was not permissible for the learned. Judge to record a finding that that the petition schedule premises is required by the sons of the landlord to start a business. Judge to record a finding that that the petition schedule premises is required by the sons of the landlord to start a business. He also pointed out that the respondents 1 and 2 are also gainfully employed and the case put forward by them that they require the petition schedule premises for their business is totally unbelievable He pointed out that the evidence on record shows that respondent 2 has acquired a property of his own wherein he is carrying on business in Estate Agency and as a matter of fact, if respondents 1 and 2 intended to carry on business in Footwear, they could have started the Footwear business in the said premises. Secondly, he submitted that since it is not in dispute that there is no bifurcating wall between the petition schedule premises and the adjacent premises bearing no. 105/1, belonging to one Sardar Pasha, which is also in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant, the learned Judge could not have passed an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant as the tenancy of the petitioner is not divisible and there was no severence of tenancy. According to the learned Counsel, such a decree for eviction amounts to a decree passed in a suit for partition, which cannot be passed in a proceedings initiated under the Act for eviction of the tenant and, therefore, the eviction petition filed is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. ( 6 ) SRI Dayananda Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, strongly supported the order dated 29th of january, 1991 passed by the learned Judge directing eviction of the petitioner-tenant and also the order dated 30th of August, 1997 passed by the learned Judge recording a finding that the petition schedule premises is required for the purpose of the business of respondents 1 and 2. He submitted that the order of eviction passed by the learned Judge clearly shows that the father of respondents 1 and 2 sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant for the purpose of the business to be carried on by himself along with his two sons and the pleadings of the landlord are fully supported by his evidence, who has been examined as P. W. 1. Further, he submitted that in view of the serious objection raised by the petitioner-tenant subsequent to the death of the landlord, a finding was called for by this Court after permitting the parties. Further, he submitted that in view of the serious objection raised by the petitioner-tenant subsequent to the death of the landlord, a finding was called for by this Court after permitting the parties. to'" lead additional evidence with regard to the claim of respondents 1 and 2 that even after the death of. their father, they still require the petition schedule premises:,,. . and on that question, the learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, has recorded a finding in their favour; and the said finding is required to be accepted by this court as the same does not suffer from any infirmities. He further pointed out that the evidence on record shows that the petitioner-tenant is financially very sound and it has its business all over the metropolitan cities in the country; and R. W. 1 also has stated in his evidence that the petitioner was trying to find out a bigger accommodation in Bangalore, which clearly shows that they are keen to secure a bigger accommodation; and are also in a position to secure a suitable alternate accommodation. Therefore, he submits that the entire matter has to be viewed by this Court in the background of the fact situation of this case where the father of respondents 1 and 2, who sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant, which is financially a very sound company, on the ground that he intended to carry on business in the petition schedule premises along with his two sons i. e. , respondents 1 and 2. ( 7 ) IN the light of the rival submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the questions that would emerge for my consideration, are the following: (1) Whether the respondents have made out a case that they require the petition schedule premises reasonably and bona fide for the purpose of business of respondents 1 and 2? (2) If an order of eviction is passed, whether the petitioner-tenant or the respondent-landlord, will be put to greater hardship? (3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an order for partial eviction can be made? (2) If an order of eviction is passed, whether the petitioner-tenant or the respondent-landlord, will be put to greater hardship? (3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an order for partial eviction can be made? (4) Whether the claim made by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant is liable to be rejected on the ground that the eviction petition is not maintainable as there is no severance of tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises?re: Question (1): ( 8 ) LATE Jabbar Ahmed, the father of respondents 1 and 2 and husband of respondent 3, sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he requires the petition schedule premises for the purpose of carrying, on business in Footwear along with his two sons, viz. , respondents 1 and 2. It is also his specific case that he was carrying on business on commission basis without any permanent place of business and he intended to start business in Footwear along with his two sons to augment "his income. The learned Judge, as noticed by me earlier, by his order dated 29th of January, 1991, on consideration of the evidence on record, passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The learned Judge, while considering Point No. 2, after elaborately considering the evidence on record, at Paragraph 16 of the order, has observed as follows:"the weight of evidence produced before Court in this case goes to show that P. W. 1 is already doing some kind of business in footwear and that he does not have a premises of his own for the same. Under such circumstances, if he requires the schedule premises for the said purpose, such requirement cannot be said to be not reasonable or not bona fide". Further, at Paragraph 17 of the order, the learned Judge, while repelling the contention of the petitioner-tenant that respondents 1 and 2 do not have any intention to join their father as they were employed in a Travel Agency and an Estate agency, has clearly held that the said respondents would also join their father in his business as doing private business is preferable to working under somebody else. The learned Judge has also taken the view that non-examination of respondents 1 and 2 will not affect the merits of the claim made by their father: further, the evidence on record shows that respondents 1 and 2 were getting only a meagre salary of Rs. 1,100/- and Rs. 1,5007- respectively. Their employment was also temporary. In the light of what is discussed above, I am of the view that the evidence of p. W. 1 coupled with the availability of a sum of Rs. 45,000/- with the landlord, would clearly establish that the landlord sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises for the purpose of his bona fide use and occupation and also for the purpose of his sons i. e. , respondents 1 and 2. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1. Therefore, in my view, the finding recorded by the learned Judge, by his order, dated 29th of January, 1991, that the petition schedule premises is required by the landlord is sufficient to accept the case of the respondents that the petition schedule 'premises is reasonably and bona fide required by them for the purpose of business of respondents 1 and 2. The death of the landlord would not make any difference. However, as observed by me earlier, in view of the serious dispute raised by the petitioner, this Court, by its order dated 31st of March, 1997, taking into account the death of the landlord and in the backdrop of the evidence on record that respondents 1 and 2 were employed, called for a finding from the learned Judge as to whether respondents 1 and 2 require the petition schedule premises reasonably and bona fide for the purpose of their business. As noticed by me earlier, the learned Judge, after permitting the petitioner and the respondents to adduce additional evidence, has, by his order dated 13th of August, 1990, given a categorical finding holding that the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bona fide required by the respondents for the purpose of business to be carried on by respondents 1 and 2. Before the learned Judge, respondents 1 and 2 had examined themselves as P. Ws. 2 and 3. Before the learned Judge, respondents 1 and 2 had examined themselves as P. Ws. 2 and 3. In the course of the evidence, P. W. 2 has stated that he was working in Bharat travel Agency from 1986 to 1992 and he tendered resignation to the said post in September 1992. The Certificate issued by the general Manager, Bharat Travels Private Ltd. , which has been marked as Exhibit P-10 clearly supports his evidence that he was working in the said Travel Agency from February 1986 to september 1992 and he had resigned from service in September 1992. In his evidence, P. W. 2 has also stated that he intends to start an outlet of shoe business. It is his further. case that he had gained training from the year 1993 to 1996 in shoe business having worked in a concern known as M/s. Sango, Brigade Road, bangalore. The Experience Certificate issued by M/s. Sango, which has been produced as Exhibit P-11, shows that P. W. 2 had gained sufficient experience in shoe business. The Certificate exhibit P-12 issued by the Corporation Bank clearly supports the case of respondents 1 and 2 that in their joint Account, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- is available, which could be used for the purpose of their business. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of respondents 1 and 2. The evidence of R. W. 2, who is the Manager of the petitioner-Company, is of no assistance to the petitioner to reject the case of the respondents. The learned Judge, after elaborately referring to the evidence on record, at Paragraph 4, has specifically found that the respondents require the petition schedule premises reasonably and bona fide to start Footwear business; The evidence on record fully supports the said finding and I do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the learned Judge. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, it is contended by Sri Shyam Koundinya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that in the absence of a specific pleading in the petition that respondents 1 and 2 intended to start a business, it is not permissible for the learned judge to record a finding that the petition schedule premises is required by respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of their business. I do not not find any merit in this submission. I do not not find any merit in this submission. At Paragraph 4 of the petition, it is specifically pleaded by the landlord that he intended to start the Footwear business in the petition schedule premises along with his two sons. It is useful to extract paragraph 4 of the petition, which reads as hereunder:"the petitioner submits that he purchased the schedule property on 26-11-1986 for his bona fide use and occupation to start business in footwear along with his two sons viz. , Sri Kamal Ahmed and Sri Jamal Ahmed who also attained majority and has got great aptitude towards business. The petitioner submits that he has got sufficient experience in the said business and also means to invest for the same. The said business is required by the petitioner and his sons to augment their income as at present the petitioner is only doing business on commission basis without any permanent place of business and he is finding it very difficult to continue to do the business without any permanent place and with that intention the petitioner purchased the schedule property which is ideally suited for his need. "therefore, it is clear that it is the case of the father of respondents 1 and 2 that he intended to start the Footwear business along with his two sons, i. e. , respondents 1 and 2. Further, this Court, on the basis of the pleadings on record, after considering the contention of the petitioner, had called for a finding from the learned Judge as to whether the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bona fide required by respondents 1 and 2. The said Order passed by this Court has remained unchallenged. Under tfrese circumstances, it is not permissible for the petitioner-tenant to contend that the respondents cannot seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petition schedule premises is required by them for their business. Further, as noticed by me earlier, the said finding is in favour of the respondents. The said finding is unexceptionable and is fully supported by the evidence on record. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also tried to build an argument on the ground that the finding of the learned judge is that respondents 1 and 2 intended to start a new business and, therefore, there is contradiction in the case of the respondents. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also tried to build an argument on the ground that the finding of the learned judge is that respondents 1 and 2 intended to start a new business and, therefore, there is contradiction in the case of the respondents. ( 11 ) THERE is also no merit in the said submission. It is necessary to point out that even according to the father of respondents 1 and 2, he wanted to start the Footwear business in the petition schedule premises along with his sons. Therefore, after the death of the father of respondents 1 and 2, if the respondents come forward and say that they want to start footwear business in the petition schedule premises, I do not find anything wrong in the learned Judge accepting the said case and recording a finding. The evidence on record also shows that the father of respondents 1 and 2 did not have any premises of his own and he was being accommodated in the premises of one m/s. Sonny Footwears, who is a friend and also a relative of the father of respondents 1 and 2, when he was carrying on footwear business on commission basis. It is also admitted by the petitioner-tenant that the father of respondents 1 and 2 was carrying on business on commission basis. Under these circumstances, if, after the death of their father, respondents 1 and 2 still persist in their claim that the petition schedule premises is required by them for the purpose of starting a business in Footwear, I do not find any unreasonableness in their demand. The evidence on record clearly shows that they are from a small background. Under these circumstances, if two youngsters, who have lost their father during the pendency of these proceedings, state on oath that they require the petition schedule premises for the purpose of starting the business in which one of them has gained sufficient experience; and in that background, a finding is recorded in their favour by the learned judge, I do not find any justification to interfere with the said finding in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Act. The Court will have to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the fact situation. The Court will have to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the fact situation. If the entire matter is considered from that point of view, I am fully satisfied that the claim made by respondents for eviction of the petitioner is reasonable and bona fide. Therefore, I record a finding on question (1) in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. He: Question (2): ( 12 ) THE evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner is a big Company having its Branch offices at various metropolitan cities, like, Bangalore, Madras, bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. The fact that they have various business outlets itself discloses the financial capacity of the petitioner-tenant. Further, the evidence of R. W. 1 also shows that on the date of his evidence i. e. , on 10th of October, 1990, the yearly turnover of the petitioner-tenant in the Branch Office at bangalore alone was around Rs. 5 lakhs and the petitioner-tenant had a stock of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) in the petition schedule premises. Further, the evidence of R. W. 1 also shows that new shopping complexes have come up in Brigade road adjoining Rex Theatre and in M. G. Road upto Rex Theatre. He has further admitted that another new Complex known as "webbs Complex" was coming up by the side of M. G. Road. He also admits that from the date of the purchase, the father of respondents 1 and 2 was insisting on the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises. He also admits that there is also "pinto Towers" by the side of Residency Road, which is a newly constructed complex. He has also admitted in Paragraph 11 of his deposition that the petition schedule premises is not sufficient for the quantum of the business carried on by the petitioner. It is also their case that the customers of the petitioner-Company are rich persons. It cannot be disputed that m. G. Road, Residency Road and Brigade Road are very prime business localities in Bangalore City and are not located very far away from the petition schedule premises. Therefore, if the new shopping Complex are coming up in the places, referred to above, and if the petitioner-tenant, who is financially sound, has not made any effort, in my view, it must take the blame for itself. Therefore, if the new shopping Complex are coming up in the places, referred to above, and if the petitioner-tenant, who is financially sound, has not made any effort, in my view, it must take the blame for itself. On the other hand, the evidence on record indicates that the respondents are not financially very comfortable. They have only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in. their Bank Account, which they have preserved from the time of their father for the purpose of their business. The nature of the business carried on by the father of respondents 1 and 2 i. e. , as a Commission Agent in footwear business, itself would indicate that the respondents are small people. Under these circumstances, if the comparative hardship is considered in the respective background of the petitioner-tenant and the respondents, I am of the view that the respondents will be put to greater hardship than the petitioner if an order of eviction is not passed in their favour. The learned judge, after considering all these matters, on this question, has held in favour of the respondents. I do not find any error in the said finding. Further, it is also relevant to point out that apart from the petition schedule premises, the petitioner-tenant will be continuing to be in possession of a premises measuring about 20' x 20', which is adjacent to the petition schedule premises. Therefore, even if the petitioners are evicted, still the petitioners will have sufficient accommodation in their possession. That would satisfy their need, while striking a balance between the claim made by the respondents and also the need of the petitioner. Therefore, this question is also held against the petitioner. Re: Question (3): ( 13 ) THE entire area of the petition schedule premises is 84 sq. ft. While considering Question (2), I have taken into account that the petitioner-tenant is also in possession of a premises measuring about 20' x 20', which is adjacent to the petition schedule premises and which faces the passage. Under these circumstances, having regard to the nature of the business respondents 1 and 2 intend to start in the petition schedule premises and also the total area available in the petition schedule premises, it is not possible and just and convenient to order partial eviction. Under these circumstances, having regard to the nature of the business respondents 1 and 2 intend to start in the petition schedule premises and also the total area available in the petition schedule premises, it is not possible and just and convenient to order partial eviction. Re: Question (4): ( 14 ) THE contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of eviction if made against the petitioner-tenant, it will amount to passing of a decree for partition, in my view, is a submission made without any basis whatsoever and in utter disregard of the evidence on record and in an attempt to somehow defeat the claim of the respondents. By means of registered sale deed dated 26th of November, 1986 marked as Exhibit P-1, the father of respondents 1 and 2 had purchased the petition schedule, property. The recital in the sale deed Exhibit P-l makes it clear that the petition schedule premises along with two other shop premises, in all three shop premises, were originally given property No. 105, Commercial street, Bangalore. The recital in the sale deed makes it clear and specific in so far as the description of the petition schedule premises is concerned. The sale deed clearly states that late jabbar Ahmed was purchasing one shop out of three shops comprising in premises bearing No. 105 facing Commercial street, which is more fully described in the Schedule given to the sale deed. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the petition schedule premises alone is facing the Commercial Street and the other two shop premises, which are in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant, are located behind the petition schedule premises and are facing the passage. Further, the schedule given in the sale deed Exhibit P-l also clearly specifies the premises purchased by the said Jabbar Ahmed and it relates to the petition schedule premises. In addition to this, in Paragraph 2 of the objections filed, the petitioner-tenant has admitted that it is a tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 380/- under the petitioner. R. W. 1, who has been examined on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, in the chief examination, has stated that the petition schedule premises and two other shop premises originally belonged to one A. J. Krishna (A. Ananthakrishna) and the rent was originally Rs. 380/- under the petitioner. R. W. 1, who has been examined on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, in the chief examination, has stated that the petition schedule premises and two other shop premises originally belonged to one A. J. Krishna (A. Ananthakrishna) and the rent was originally Rs. 860/- in respect of the entire premises; and after the sale of the petition schedule premises by the said Ananthakrishna to Sri Jabbar ahmed and two other shops to one Sardar Pasha, the petitioner-tenant was paying a rent of Rs. 380/- per month to the petition schedule premises and Rs. 480/- in respect of the said two shops to Sardar Pasha, The only objection raised or rather the statement made in the course of the evidence was that there is no bifurcation wall between the petition schedule premises and the other two shops. There is no dispute that subsequent to the purchase of the petition schedule premises, Katha in respect of the petition schedule premises was changed in the name of the said Jabbar Ahmed and the petition schedule premises is given a separate number i,e. , 105/1. Under these circumstances, I am unable to appreciate the stand of the petitioner-tenant that if an order of eviction is passed against the petitioner, it virtually amounts to passing of a decree for partition on the ground that there is no severance of tenancy. As noticed by me earlier, the property purchased by late Jabbar Ahmed is a specific and identified one i. e. , the petition schedule premises. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner-tenant has attorned the tenancy to the said Jabbar Ahmed by agreeing to pay Rs. 380/- as rent per month in respect of the petition schedule premises. Therefore, it is clear by the fact that the petitioner-tenant had agreed to pay rs. 380/- as rent per month to the said Jabbar Ahmed, clearly shows that subsequent to the purchase of the petition schedule premises by the said Jabbar Ahmed, there has been severance of one tenancy in respect of the three shops under the original landlord the aforesaid Ananthakrishna; and in its place, two fresh tenancies were created-one in respect of the petition schedule premises by agreeing to pay Rs. 380/- as rent per month to one said Jabbar Ahmed and another in respect of the said two shop premises purchased by the aforesaid Sardar Pasha by agreeing to pay rent of Rs. 480/- per month. Thus, the property transferred being distinct and well defined and rent payable also having been apportioned as payable to the property transferred, the tenancy stood split upon transfer and the petition filed for eviction of the petitioner-tenant, in my view, is maintainable in law. The view I have taken above is also supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Haji Abdul ghanisaheb v Rajan Sharma. This Court, after quoting sections 37 and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, at paragraphs 10 and 11, has observed thus:". . . . ON a combined reading of these two sections, what emerges out is: when in consequence of transfer of the property leased is divided and held by different transferees in different shares, the benefit of any obligation relating to the property as a whole, also passes from transferor to several transferees of the property leased, with corresponding duty to be performed in favour of each of such several transferees in proportionate to their share in the property, provided the duty can be so severed without substantially increasing the burden of obligation. If the duty cannot be so severed or the severence would substantially increase the burden of obligation, the duty shall be performed for the benefit of each of the transferees as determined by them jointly. This also holds good where only part of the property leased is transferred by the lessor and the property so transferred is either divided or is ascertainable for being held separately from the part not transferred. This also holds good where only part of the property leased is transferred by the lessor and the property so transferred is either divided or is ascertainable for being held separately from the part not transferred. In either of these cases, all that is necessary is that the tenant must have sufficient notice of the transfer to convert his single obligation into several obligations to pay the rent to several transferees who by virtue of the provisions of Section 109 step into the shoes of the lessor become possessed of rights of the original lessor as to the property or part of the property transferred and the lessee, if he so elects, is subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part of the property transferred, except that the transferee will not be entitled to the arrears of rent due before transfer and the lessee shall not be liable to pay the rent over again to the transferees. In what proportion the rent will be payable in respect of part of the premises or different portions of the premises transferred may be determined by the lessor, transferee (s) and lessee. In case of disagreement between them as provided under Section 109, the same will be determined by the Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of the property leased. However, as long as there is no apportionment of the rent made, the obligation remains single and the transferee, or transferees (where different portions of the property is sold to different persons), who becomes the lessor in place of original lessor, will not be allowed to split the tenancy for claiming or recovering the rent or a part of the property leased. The rights and liabilities of the lessor and the lessee are determinable by the terms of the contract or local usages and those specified in Section 108 of the transfer of Property Act. Since by virtue of clause (c) of section 108, transferees from the original lessor shall be deemed to contract with the lessee that if the latter pays the rent reserved by the lease and performs the contract binding on him, he may hold the property during the time limited by the lease without interruption. In other words, the tenant shall continue in undisturbed possession of the property leased until determination of the lease. In other words, the tenant shall continue in undisturbed possession of the property leased until determination of the lease. In sum and substance, where the property leased is transferred, there is severance of tenancy; but, inspite of severance of tenancy, the lessee is entitled to continue in possession of the property without interruption by paying the rent as originally reserved proportionate to the property transferred. However, where the property leased is transferred in different shares to different transferees, without specifying as to which part of the property leased is transferred to which of the transferees, and although it may be possible to say what share they have in the property so transferred having regard to the contributions made by the transferees for the transfer, and the transferees, by virtue of the provisions of Section 36 of the T. P. Act, may be entitled to claim and receive the rent in proportion to their share, they cannot however determine the lease or recover possession of the property leased proportionate to their share; because until and unless there is a division of the property leased in proportion to their share, the transferees cannot say that they are the lessors in respect of any particular part of the property. In order to effect severance of tenancy on transfer, there must be necessarily be a division of the property. Once there is division of the property, either while transferring of the property leased or after transfer, among the transferees of the property leased proportion to their share, then there is severance of tenancy. That being so, the transferee of the property leased will be entitled to recover possession of the part of the property leased in proportion to his share so determined. Although as stated earlier, under general law, even after transfer of the property leased, the tenant is entitled to continue in undisturbed possession of the property leased to him by paying the premium of the rent reserved until determination of the lease, but in case of statutory tenants continuing in possession of the property leased, because of the protection from eviction given to them under the Rent Control Act, the determination of the lease being not necessary, the transferee of the part of the property transferred may recover possession without determination of the lease. 11. It appears, it is not necessary to refer to various decisions cited and relied upon by Mr. 11. It appears, it is not necessary to refer to various decisions cited and relied upon by Mr. Narayana Rao since the question of law as now raised by him was subject of consideration in the decision of Sree Nataraja Flour Mills v venkatarathnaiah, of this Court and after referring to various decisions including the one relied upon by Mr. Narayana Rao, it has been held that On transfer of a part of the property leased, there is severance of tenancy. The transferee of the property leased, or where it is transferred to different persons, all the transferees, step into the shoes of the lessor. There being thus severance of tenancy, on a transfer of a part of the property leased and the transferee becoming the lessor and the lessee becoming the lessee of the transferee of the part of the property so transferred, they will be subject to all the rights and the liabilities of the lessor and the lessee as specified under Section 108 of the Transfer of property Act". The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision fully applies to the facts of the present case. Merely because for the convenience of the tenant, the said Jabbar Ahmed and Sardar Pasha did not insist on the petitioner-tenant to put a bifurcating wall in between the two premises, it would not in any way affect the respective rights of the said Jabbar Ahmed and Sardar Pasha in respect of the two portions purchased by them in respect of which two tenancies were created. The learned Judge, while considering the question as to whether the frame of the eviction petition filed against the petitioner-tenant was bad, i. e. , Point no. 1, in Paragraphs 6 to 11 of the order, has elaborately considered the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant on this question and held against the petitioner-tenant. I do not find any infirmity in the finding ded by the learned Judge. It is unfortunate that the tenant ot me status of the petitioner, who is financially very sound, is somehow trying to deny relief to the respondents, who are very small people and who are struggling to take possession of a small shop premises for the purpose of their business. It is unfortunate that the tenant ot me status of the petitioner, who is financially very sound, is somehow trying to deny relief to the respondents, who are very small people and who are struggling to take possession of a small shop premises for the purpose of their business. It is needless to point out that the petitioner is totally abusing the protection given to the tenants, who are in need of shelter and who, on account of their financial and other background, are not in a position to find out alternative accommodation and who have to depend upon the mercy of the landlords. ( 15 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, I am of the view that the decision of this Court relied upon by Sri Koundinya in the case of R. Abdul Salam v Ghouse Bi, has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case and I find it unnecessary to refer to the said decision in detail. Similarly, I also do not find that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in -the cases of (1) Radha Krishnan v thayappa Setty; (2) Abdul Salam,supra; (3) Amarjit Singh v smt. Khatoon Quamarain; and (4) Yasimsab Fakruddinsab dori v Basappa, are of any assistance to the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to refer to the principles laid down in the said decisions in the course of this order. ( 16 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed, but without costs. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-tenant is given two months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule premises keeping in view that the eviction petition is of the year 1987; the petitioner-tenant is financially very sound and is capable of paying higher rent and securing suitable alternate premises; the petitioner-tenant is undisputedly in possession of two other shops situated adjacent to the petition schedule premises; the accommodation in the said premises is larger than that of the petition schedule premises; and under these circumstances, no hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner if it is not given time for more than two months from today to vacate the petition schedule premises. Further, it is necessary to make it clear that on the petitioner-tenant vacating the petition schedule premises, the respondent-landlord is entitled to put up a wall (bifurcating wall) in the petition schedule premises and the petitioner-tenant is entitled to put up a wall in its premises. --- *** --- .