V GOVINDARAJA NAICKER Vs. SAPTHAGIRI COMPLEX BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision petition is directed against an order passed on i. A. Filed under section 69(2) of the indian partnership Act, 1932 in hrc proceedings no. 3084 of 1986 filed by M/s. Sapthagiri complex an unregistered partnership firm along with All the partners constituting the firm.

(2.) the undisputed facts are that an eviction proceeding wasinitiated under clauses (a), (h) and (j) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Karnataka rent control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule tenanted premises. The 1st petitioner has been described as M/s. Sapthagiri complex, a partnership firm having its place of business at no. 144/1, apmc yard, bangalore-560 022, represented by one of the partners Smt. L.a. pushpamala and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners have described themselves as partners of the first petitioner-firm and 5th petitioner has described himself as partner succeeding to the partnership subsequent to the demise of his father who was partner of the firm.

(3.) after service of notice, the tenant has contested the matterand has taken up an objection regarding the maintainability of the hrc petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as the same does not meet the legal requirements as envisaged under sub-section (2) of section 69 of the indian partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'act 1932'). For purposes of proper appreciation of the contentions raised, it is apt to refer to sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 69 of the act. Section 69 reads as follows: