LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3) - Case Law

Esheta Lunkad ,
  14 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
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.
Citation :
Appellant: Chhotelal Pyarelalthe Partnership Firm Respondent: Sikhar Chand Citation: 1985 SCR (1) 268

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. 

 

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

 
"Loved reading this piece by Esheta Lunkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 261




Comments




LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query