So far as the sub-letting is concerned, the Defendant No. 1/2 stated that the second Defendant Somabhai Dahyabhai was engaged as their worker and that he was being paid 50% of the charges as worker and as still Somabhai did not find it profitable and, he had left the job. The fact that a stranger was engaged in the shop and he was being paid 50% labour charges, as rightly observed by the trial court that it must have been either a case of partnership or of sub-letting. That apart, second Defendant Somabhai has not been examined to substantiate the version of the Defendants that he was engaged by the Defendants as their worker. The findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court on sub-letting is accordingly reversed, restoring the findings of the trial court that the Defendants are liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting also.
Print Page
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5284 of 2006
Decided On: 12.04.2017
Anil Kumar Dadurao Dhekle Vs. Rukhiben and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment