Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3128 (ALL)

BASANT LAL BANARSI LAL PVT. LTD. , DISTT. KANPUR v. SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA

2009-09-14

POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—The order of vacancy in respect of premises No. 73/16, Collector Ganj, Kanpur Nagar dated 14.12.2006, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in case No. 80 of 2004 and judgment dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 6 of 2007, M/s. Basant Lal Banarasi Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Gupta and another, are impugned in the instant writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, he started business in the name and style firm M/s. Basant Lal Banarsi Lal in the year 1943. Initially the firm started with Basant Lal and his son. It was a registered partnership firm, registered in Bombay, Maharashtra and its branch was running in the premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has detailed the pedigree in paragraph 4 of the writ petition as below : Basant Lal I I Banarasi Lal Satya Narain I I I Nagarmal JI Makhan Lal Ji Narottam Ji I I Janardan Ji Bhagwati Pd. Ji I Pradeep Kumar Ji 3. Further submission of Senior Advocate Sri Navin Sinha, assisted by Sri Atul Dayal is that after death of original partners, their sons became partner and no outsider other than family members of the original tenant was inducted as partner. It is also brought to my notice that several other firms were constituted by sons and grandsons of the original tenant as M/s. Satya Narain Sekhsaria and Company, M/s. Radhey Shyam Textiles etc. but it is specifically pointed out by learned counsel that none of the firms conducted their business from the accommodation in dispute. The premises in respect of which vacancy has been declared, consists of four godowns, two tin shed godowns, four rooms, gaddi, open space, tin shed, besides other amenities at the rate of Rs. 1275.87/- per month. The premises being an old construction, Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) is applicable to the said building. On 9.3.1995 the firm M/s. Basant Lal Banarasi Lal operating business from the disputed premises was converted into a Private Limited Company. Learned counsel has also pointed out Articles of Association to substantiate his argument that three Directors of the said Private Limited Company were Bhagwati Prasad, Makkhan Lal Sekhsaria, Janardan Nagar Mal Sekhsaria and Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsariya. On 9.3.1995 the firm M/s. Basant Lal Banarasi Lal operating business from the disputed premises was converted into a Private Limited Company. Learned counsel has also pointed out Articles of Association to substantiate his argument that three Directors of the said Private Limited Company were Bhagwati Prasad, Makkhan Lal Sekhsaria, Janardan Nagar Mal Sekhsaria and Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsariya. It is, therefore, assertion on the part of the petitioner that subsequent partners were heirs of the original tenant and there would be no difference whatsoever if the constitution was changed to a Private Limited Company. The firm was conducting business of Cotton Bails and related material and is still dealing in the same area. The respondents became landlord by virtue of three separate sale-deeds dated 26.10.1996, 10.3.1997 and 27.3.1997 bearing different numbers, 73/16-A purchased by Santosh Kumar Gupta, 73/16-B by Smt. Veena Devi and 73/16-C by their sons Shantanu Gupta. It is further averred that previously the landlord were accepting rent but later they refused to accept rent and consequent thereon, the rent was deposited in Misc. Case No. 433/70 of 2002. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the landlord all along adopted ways and means to oust the petitioner from the premises by initiating a number of proceedings. Finally a suit for injunction as O.S. No. 588 of 2004 was instituted. The present proceedings initiated after an intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was given by the landlord under Section 15(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) regarding existence of vacancy on the ground that the original firm M/s. Basant Lal Banarsi Lal stands dissolved and a Private Limited Company has taken over the premises without any allotment order. This application was moved on 1.7.2004. After getting the premises inspected and due verification as well as after entertaining objection and counter objection which are all part of the record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 14.12.2006 declared vacancy under Section 12(1) (b) of the Act. This application was moved on 1.7.2004. After getting the premises inspected and due verification as well as after entertaining objection and counter objection which are all part of the record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 14.12.2006 declared vacancy under Section 12(1) (b) of the Act. A writ petition No. 70996 of 2006 was preferred in this Court challenging the aforesaid order which was dismissed vide order dated 3.1.2007 on the ground after it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has already filed a revision against the order declaring vacancy alongwith a stay application which is pending, therefore, since the petitioner is already pursuing an alternative remedy, no order was required exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction. The revision was also dismissed on 10.10.2007 and two orders are under challenge. 4. Sri Navin Sinha appearing for the contesting respondent has argued that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act would not be attracted for the reason that none other than the family members have been inducted as partner or Director of the Company. Thus the provisions of Rule 10(6)(a) does not come into play at all. Section 12(2) of the Act is quoted below : “12(2). In the case of a non-residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.” 5. The next argument is that the Courts below completely ignored the aspect that the firm was the tenant in occupation prior to the advent of the Act in 1972 and subsequently conversion of the firm into Private Limited Company would not ipso facto create a legal vacancy. It is submitted next that no permission was required either from the landlord or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before the firm was converted into Private Limited Company as all the Directors or the partners are family members of the original tenant Basant Lal. Learned counsel while challenging the revisional order submits that the revision was dismissed as not maintainable following the principles laid down in the case of Achal Mishra v. Rama Shanker Singh and others, 2005(1) ARC 877. Learned counsel while challenging the revisional order submits that the revision was dismissed as not maintainable following the principles laid down in the case of Achal Mishra v. Rama Shanker Singh and others, 2005(1) ARC 877. It is true that initially a writ petition was filed in this Court which was dismissed on account of pendency of the revision and thereafter the revision was also dismissed as not maintainable and, therefore, the petitioner could not challenge order declaring vacancy. In view of this submission, I consider it fit and proper to examine the order declaring vacancy by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on merits as well. 6. Learned counsel has also substantiated his argument on the basis of Articles of Association of Company Basant Lal Banarasi Lal Pvt. Ltd. in clause 35 the Directors are Sri Bhagwati Prasad Makhanlal Sekhsaria, Sri Janardan Nagarmal Sekhsaria and Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsaria. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in pursuance of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the following persons were allotted their respective shares in the capital of company. Names, address, description and Number of Equity shares occupation of each subscriber. Taken by each subscriber. 1. Narrottam Satyanayrana Sekhasaria 10,185 s/o Late Satyanarayan Sekhsaria Bhagwati Bhavan, 2nd Floor, 31-B, Carmichael Road, Bombay-400026 BUSINESS 2. Bhagwatiprasad Makhanlal Sekhsaria 10,185 as Trustee of Makhanlal Sekhsaria Family Trust, s/o Late Makhanlal B. Sekhsaria, 19, Bhuleshwar Road, Bombay-400002 BUSINESS 3. Hanardan Nagarmal Sekhsaria 210 s/o Late Nagarmal Sekhsaria, Sekhsaria Building, 448, SVP Road, Bombay - 400004 BUSINESS. 4. Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad 210 Sekhsaria s/o Bhagwatiprasad Sekhsaria, Shivner Building, 84-B, Nepaensea Road, Bombay - 400 006. BUSINESS. 5. Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria 84 as Director of M/s. Radhagirdhar Builders & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. s/o Late Nagarmal, 11-A, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400021, BUSINESS. 6. Janardan Nagarmal Sekhsaria as a 84 Director of M/s. Udhav Holdings Pvt. Ltd. s/o Late Nagarmal Sekhsaria, 11-A, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400021, BUSINESS. 7. Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria as 42 Director of M/s. Divine Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd. s/o Late Nagarmal, 11-A, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400021, BUSINESS. 7. Sri Navin Sinha has placed reliance on a case decided by Delhi High Court, Vishwanath and another v. Chaman Lal Khanna and another, AIR 1975 Delhi 117. 7. Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria as 42 Director of M/s. Divine Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd. s/o Late Nagarmal, 11-A, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400021, BUSINESS. 7. Sri Navin Sinha has placed reliance on a case decided by Delhi High Court, Vishwanath and another v. Chaman Lal Khanna and another, AIR 1975 Delhi 117. While placing this judgment, he has also submitted at the very outset that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are para materia to that of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The facts of the Delhi case was that one Vishwanath, who was the tenant thought of expending his business and finally constituted a Private Limited Company. Previously the business was running in the name and style of Interads International Advertising Agency and subsequently a Private Limited Company styled as Interads Advertising (P) Limited Company was constituted. Subsequent to the formation of the firm in the year 1964, rent was paid by pre-receipted cheques to the landlord. Subsequently in the year 1969, the landlord brought a suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant had sublet, assigned and parted with the possession of premises in favour of the company. The Delhi High Court was of the view that the tenant has not completely effaced himself. He continues in legal possession and controlling interest in the company. Paragraph 22 of the said judgment is quoted herein below : “22. If an individual takes the premises on rent and then converts his sole proprietorship concern into a Private Limited Company in which he has the controlling interest he cannot be evicted from the premises. On the proved facts this is the inevitable conclusion. The person who took the premises on rent remains in possession though he forms a company and ceases to be the sole proprietor. He does not cease to be in possession. He has not parted with the possession with any one. He has changed the form of his business. In Interads Vishwa Nath was the sole proprietor. In Interads Private Limited he has the controlling interest and his wife and his two sons are the other shareholders alongwith two other strangers. He was all in all in his proprietorship concern. Now also he is the Chief Executive Chairman and the Managing Director of the company. In Interads Vishwa Nath was the sole proprietor. In Interads Private Limited he has the controlling interest and his wife and his two sons are the other shareholders alongwith two other strangers. He was all in all in his proprietorship concern. Now also he is the Chief Executive Chairman and the Managing Director of the company. It is true that the company is a juristic person but in each case what we have to see is whether possession has been parted with and whether there is an ouster of the tenant. If the company is facade concealing the true facts it may be necessary for the Court to pierce the corporate veil. 8. The next decision relied upon by Sri Navin Sinha is once again relates to Delhi Rent Control Act but it is a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) v. Inder Singh and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1564. The Apex Court was of the view that the firm in occupation of premises as tenant later established a Limited Company with its partners and Directors and their company was operating from the same very tenanted premises, it was held that the firm when though had a separate legal entity but it is not a case of subletting or assigning. Similar view was expressed by this Court while placing reliance on the two decisions mentioned aforesaid in the case of Harish Khurana v. Prem Kumar and another, 2006(1) ADJ 251 . Parapgraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted below : “5. In case tenant had entered into partnership business with his wife there would not have been any sub-letting by virtue of Section 12(2) of the Act as wife is included in the definition of the family of tenant. However, in respect of company no provision has been made under the Act. Certain authorities of the Supreme Court have been cited at the Bar in respect of partnership firms. However, these authorities are not relevant for two reasons. Firstly, partnership firm is not a legal entity and it is merely a name used to describe all the partners compendiously. Secondly for partnership, special provision has been made under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Certain types of partnership may be sub-letting in other States but not under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Firstly, partnership firm is not a legal entity and it is merely a name used to describe all the partners compendiously. Secondly for partnership, special provision has been made under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Certain types of partnership may be sub-letting in other States but not under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Similarly certain types of partnerships may not be sub-letting in other States or under general law of landlord-tenant provided under Chapter V Transfer of Property Act but in Uttar Pradesh those will amount to sub-letting. 9. Sri M.K. Gupta and Sri Saurabh Srivastava Advocates have appeared for the landlord-respondent. While refuting the arguments of Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, Sri Gupta has placed the original registration deed of the firm Basant Lal Banarasi Lal which is Annexure-CA-2 to the counter-affidavit, having three partners Basant Lal, Rang Lal, Banarasilal Basantlal and Satyanarayan Basantlal. Emphasis is also laid down in the recital of the said deed that it was a ‘partnership at Will’. The submission is that the firm is not a legal entity and partners are in fact co-tenants. After Makhan Lal retired on 1.8.1987 as shown in CA-2, reference is once again to the partnership deed. Sri Bhagwati Prasad Makhan Lal Sekhsaria was inducted as a partner subsequent to retirement of Makhan Lal Banarasi Lal Sekhsaria as a trustee of Bhagwati Prasad Makhan Lal Sekhsaria Trust. Thus it cannot be concluded that Bhagwati Prasad was a male lineal descendant of remaining partners unless he was inducted as a partner, while his father Sri Makhan Lal continued as a partner. On 2.8.1987 Makhan Lal was not a partner as he had retired a day earlier in time and uncles of Bhagwati Prasad continued to be partners, therefore, it cannot be said that he was a made lineal descendant, more so he was inducted as a trustee of the family trust. Learned counsel has also tried to substantiate his argument on the basis of the same deed of partnership that five partners were existing at the time when the Private Limited Company was constituted, the partners of the firm were Sri Janardan Nagar Mal Sakhsaria and Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsaria. 10. The Memorandum of Association annexed with the writ petition in fact does not mention the complete details of the constituents of the new company. 10. The Memorandum of Association annexed with the writ petition in fact does not mention the complete details of the constituents of the new company. It is only the names of family members of Basant Lal shown whereas Annexure-2 to the writ petition, at serial No. 35 only mentions the first Directors of the Company as Bhagwati Prasad Makhanlal Sekhsaria, Janardan Nagarmal Sekhsaria and Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsaria and their respective equity shares are shown in the table. It is evident that Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsaria is shown to be son of Bhagwati Prasad Sekhsaria, Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria as Director of M/s. Radhagirdhar Builders and Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Janardan Nagarmal Sekhsaria as Director of M/s. Udhav Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria as Director of Divine Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11. Sri M.K. Gupta has placed the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Radhagirdhar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. wherein the company was incorporated which is Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit. This is to bring to the notice of the Court that several partners who had formed the company pursuant to the Memorandum of Association had taken shares in capital of the company. The names mentioned were Surendra Kumar Sekhsaria, Nagarmal Sekhsaria and Arun Kumar Tulsan son of Cafe Govind Ram Tulsan, Nand Deep Building, third floor Khar Pali Hill Bombay 40052. Thus he is a rank outsider. In the memorandum and Articles of Association annexed as Annexure SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit, the names of first Directors are mentioned at serial No. 35. It is specifically mentioned : Directors The first Director of the Company established : (1) Surendra Kumar N. Sekhsaria (2) Arun Kumar G. Tulsan. Thus Sri M.K. Gupta has repeatedly pointed out that Arun Kumar Tulsan who was included in the Company does not belong to the pedigree of Basant Lal detailed in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. 12. While challenging the legal submissions raised by Sri Navin Sinha, Sri M.K. Gupta has come up with the argument that on a composite reading of Sections 11, 12(2) and 13 of the Act, it imposes a complete prohibition of letting out a building covered by the Act except in pursuance of an allotment order issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 of the Act. Ambit of Section 13 has also been elucidated to substantiate his argument that Section 13 has to be read with Section 11 of the Act. Thus if Section 12(2) creates a vacancy of non-residential building where the tenant permits an outsider who is not a member of his family as a partner, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. Thus after the dissolution of the partnership and coming of Private Limited Company coming in existence with Directors who are not a family member, the company acquires an entirely separate legal entity. Thus the argument of Sri Navin Sinha has been refuted that the control over the premises is by an outsider as well as other family members. Sri M.K. Gupta has placed provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and drawing a parallel with U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he submits that the provisions of Act No. 3 of 1947 was somewhat akin to Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act but there is no provision similar to Sections 11, 12(2) or Section 13 of the Act in Delhi Rent Control Act. The company after coming in existence is liable to get an allotment order in the name of the company with the name of the Directors, having failed to do so the decision of Vishwanath case (supra) has no applicability whatsoever. 13. Sri M.K. Gupta has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court, Singer India Ltd. v. Chander Mohan Chadha and others, 2004(7) SCC 1 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the plea of the transferee company for lifting its corporate veil to see that its Directors and shareholders were the same as those of the original company and, therefore, there was no subletting or parting with possession was not allowed. It was held by a Constitution Bench that this was not permitted. While upholding the aforesaid view, the Apex Court had placed reliance on Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) v. Inder Singh, (1986) 3 SCC 62 and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Shyam Cooperative Housing Society, (1988) 4 SCC 747 . Sri M.K. Gupta has also placed reliance on Bilal and another v. IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar and others, 2003(2) ARC 156. 14. (West) v. Inder Singh, (1986) 3 SCC 62 and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Shyam Cooperative Housing Society, (1988) 4 SCC 747 . Sri M.K. Gupta has also placed reliance on Bilal and another v. IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar and others, 2003(2) ARC 156. 14. Sri Navin Sinha while replying the argument of Sri M.K. Gupta has submitted that virtually control remains of family of Basant Lal in one form or the other and, therefore, it cannot be said that an outsider was allowed to participate in the business creating vacancy. 15. After hearing the respective counsels at length and scrutinizing the record, it is evident that there is no factual dispute. It is only to be decided that whether the partnership firm which was initially inducted as a tenant, still continued in occupation after the incorporation of the Private Limited Company and constituent of the said company are the family members of the original tenant Basant Lal. In case an outsider has been inducted then admittedly it is a case of the deemed vacancy and occupation by new entity without allotment order renders its occupation illegal. The question in the case of Vishwanath case (supra) was on the basis of Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, which is quoted below : “14. Protection of tenant against eviction.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant. Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely : (a) ........................................ (b) that the tenant has on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.” Whereas in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is not only Section 12(2) but if such an incident occurs then the occupation by erstwhile tenant alongwith certain new partners or Directors provide that their occupation will have to be regularized under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. 16. 16. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Harish Khurana (supra), I am of the view that it is once again a partnership firm consisting of only husband and wife and, therefore, this Court held that there was no vacancy under Section 12(2) and not a case of subletting. Reliance was placed on Madras Bangalore Transport Company (supra) and also Singer India Limited which is an authority by three Judges but the Court was of the view that in both these cases, notice was taken of the decision of the Delhi High Court’s decision in Vishwanath case (supra). A bare perusal of Delhi Rent Control Act, it is sufficient to conclude the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) is more liberal. The contention of Shri Sinha that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act are para materia cannot be accepted. Thus the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 require certain conditions to be fulfilled to absolve the tenant from eviction. In U.P. a creation of partnership with a stranger who is not a family member as defined by the Act, amounts to subletting and no further inquiry is required even if son and nephew or any other member or even closely related person who does not come within the definition of a family of Section 3(g), it will mean to be an outsider. A perusal of Section 3(g), the word male lineal descendant or any unmarried widow, divorced, judicially separated daughter or daughter of male lineal descendant are included. Thus the provision in U.P. Rent Control Act is different from Delhi Rent Control Act. Assuming that after dissolution of partnership firm, a Private Limited Company has come in existence, it is essential that the constituent of the company should belong to one and the same family. Even in the case of Madras Bangalore Transport Company (supra) Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act was taken into consideration and the Apex Court was of the view that the subsequent company i.e. Caravan Goods Carrier Private Limited whose Directors were partners of Madras-Bangalore Transport Company (West) was in truth and reality no other than the Madras-Bangalore Transport Company itself. The argument that one was partnership and other was Private Limited Company was not accepted. 17. The Apex Court had also taken into consideration the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. The argument that one was partnership and other was Private Limited Company was not accepted. 17. The Apex Court had also taken into consideration the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd., 1897 AC 22, where the question of lifting the corporate veil of the company was considered. The House of Lords had observed : ‘the company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers....., and though it may be that after incorporation the business is precisely the same as it was before, the same persons are managers, and the same hands receive the profits, the company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or trustee for them. Nor are the subscribers as members liable, in any shape or form, except to the extent and in the manner provided by that Act.’ 18. The Apex Court in the case of Singer India Ltd. case (supra) had taken into consideration the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. The conclusion was that taking into account the provisions of Section 14(1)(b), the Court though had to come to an unambiguous conclusion that there was no parting with possession of the premises by tenant firm, assignment or subletting so that it could safely be said that the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act was not attracted. The applicability of provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act depended upon ground of factual situation whether it is voluntary or otherwise and reasons for doing so are wholly irrelevant and has no bearing. 19. In the instant case, it is established by documents that though on the face of it Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria, Janardan Nagarmal Sekhsaria and Surendra Kumar Nagarmal Sekhsaria were the shareholders of the capital of the company but they were in the capacity of Directors of M/s. Radhagirdhar Builders & Holdings Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Udhav Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Divine Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd. They were one of the Directors of the company but since the companies were also shareholders, the petitioner cannot escape the fact that there were some outsiders who were not family members. Thus assuming that in the case of Harish Khurana (supra) this Court relied upon the cases of Vishwanath and Madras Bangalore Transport Company (supra) but it is a different situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as explained in paragraph 8 of the judgment. Thus assuming that in the case of Harish Khurana (supra) this Court relied upon the cases of Vishwanath and Madras Bangalore Transport Company (supra) but it is a different situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as explained in paragraph 8 of the judgment. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted below : “8. In Uttar Pradesh mere creation of partnership with stranger who is not a family member as defined under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 amounts to sub-letting and no further inquiry is required. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of Mahendra has held that if the tenant has entered into partnership with his nephews and cousins but he has not parted with possession and control of the premises and business, then it is not sub-letting. The said case was from Karnataka. However, in Uttar Pradesh even a partnership with son-in-law amounts to sub-letting as son-in-law is not included in the definition of family under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Vide Harish Tandon v. A.D.M., AIR 1995 SC 676 ).” 20. It is sufficiently established that the three companies mentioned aforesaid which were part of the Private Limited Company at its very inception cannot be said to be a family member of Basant Lal Sekhsaria. 21. Thus taking into account all these observations and specially the detailed judgment in Singer India Ltd.. (supra) by the Apex Court, it is obvious that inescapable conclusion is that it is the Company in occupation carrying its business from the premises in question and there are outsiders other than the family members as shareholders, therefore, this by itself renders the petitioner’s liable for eviction. The provisions of the U.P. Act are definitely more stringent. I come to a conclusion that the onus on the shoulders of the landlord has been discharged and the respondents have successfully established that outsiders have joined hands in the company and the partnership firm is no longer the same entity as it used to be before the Private Limited Company was incorporated. 22. In view of the findings recorded above, I consider that it is a case where new persons have been inducted in the company and, therefore, it requires an allotment order regularizing the tenancy of the new company. Since this formality has not been completed, the orders of the Courts below do not call for any interference whatsoever. 22. In view of the findings recorded above, I consider that it is a case where new persons have been inducted in the company and, therefore, it requires an allotment order regularizing the tenancy of the new company. Since this formality has not been completed, the orders of the Courts below do not call for any interference whatsoever. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. ————