Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent
Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3) - CASE LAW:
Chhotelal Pyarelalthe vs Shikharchand.
Bench:
Bhagwati, P.N.
Issue:
The application against the partnership firm was not maintainable without joining its partners as respondents.
Case facts:
In an eviction application, filed by respondent against the appellant-a partnership firm under Clause 13(3) (vi) and (vii) of the Central Provinces and Berar letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the application against the partnership firm was not maintainable without joining its partners as respondents. The High Court ultimately held that such an application for eviction was maintainable.
Appellant's Contention:
There can be no doubt that since the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the HRC Order, no application for eviction can be maintained against a firm in the firm name. The firm is merely a compendious name for the partners constituting it and it is only by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a firm can sue and be sued in its own name without the partners being impleaded co-nominee. It is therefore clear that the firm of M/s, Chhotelal Pyarelal could not be sued in the firm name by the respondent in so far as the application for eviction.
Respondent's contention:
The respondent filed an application under clauses 13 (3) (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949 to evict petitioner firm of Chhotelal Pyarelal. The respondent alleged that the firm was a tenant in respect of the premises and eviction of the firm was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent for the purpose of his occupation under paragraph (vi) as also for the purpose of making essential repairs under paragraph (vii) of Clause 13(3). The firm of Chhotelal Pyarelal raised a preliminary contention that no application could be maintained against a partnership firm and such an application was liable to be rejected. This contention ultimately came to be considered by a learned single Judge of the High Court at Nagpur.
Judgment:
The High Court ultimately held that such an application for eviction was maintainable. Hence the appeal to this Court Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back to the Rent Controller.
