K K SARIN Vs. PIGETT CHAPMAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. K.K. Sarin petitioner herein filed an eviction petition against M/s. Pigett Chapman & Co., a partnership concern of which Sarvi Singh and Smt. Jind Singh respondents 2 and 3 were the partners. During the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, one of the partners, Sarvi Singh died which necessitated the petitioner to file this application under Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 30 Rule 4 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code with the prayer that the name of Smt. Jind Singh being the wife of the deceased be substituted in place of Sarvi Singh The application was opposed by the respondent and a written reply was filed alleging that Sarvi Singh was tenant in his own right and has left behind a son Arjun Singh and daughter Mrs. Meera Randhwa and Miss Pia Singh besides his wife. Mrs. Jind Singh who is tenant in her own right.

(2.) During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards the provisions of Section 2 (1) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which provides that in the event of death of the person continuing In possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order of sucession and conditions specified, respectively, in explanation I and Explanation II to this clause, such of the persons (a) spouse, (b) son or daughter, or, whether there are both sons and daughters, both of them, (c) parents, (d ) daughter in law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, as had been ordinarily living in the premises with such person as a member or members of his family up to the date of his death is the tenant. According to the learned Counsel, the tenancy in question stood terminated during the life time of Sarvi Singh by notice which fact is denied by the Counsel for the respondent. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs Jind Singh, wife of the deceased being in possession as a partner of the firm, is the only person who can be substituted in place of Sarvi Singb. According to him, the tenancy is in the name of partnership firm in which Sarvi Singh and Mrs Jind Singh, i.e. the husband and wife were in possession as partners of the firm. Neither the son nor the daughters were in possession of the premises and, therefore, the question of joining the son or the daughter as legal heirs of Sarvi Singh does not arise. Counsel for the petitioner however, submits that even otherwise in case of a firms it is the firm which is the only necessary party. In support of his contention he put reliance on a decision of this Court in Ramji Lal Ram Saroop vs Bombay Goods Carriers (P) Ltd, 44 (1991) Delhi Law Times 383 wherein it has been held that eviction petition filed in the name of the firm only is maintainable. According to the learned Counsel, in this case not only the firm in whose name the tenancy stands, but the surviving partner has also been made a party. He also relied upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu Dayal v. Chunnilal Devkinandan and others, AIR 1980 Rajasthan 60 in support of his contention that the provisions of Section 30 are enabling provisions and they do not make it compulsory for the partners to sue in the name of the firm. If the suit is not filed in the name of the firm, it can be brought in the name of all the partners and if one partner dies during the pendency of the suit, the remaining partner can continue the suit. There is no necessary of legal heirs to be brought on record. This conclusion can be deducted from Section 47 of the Partnership Act which recognises that after the dissolution of the firm after the death of a partner, the remaining partners may represent the dissolved firm in luding the interest of the deceased partner to recover any debt due to the firm.

(3.) Without discussing the question whether the tenancy of the suit premises was terminated during the life time of Sarvi Singh or not, relying upon the decision of this Court in Ramjilal Ram Saroop (supra) and that of Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu Dayal (supra), I allow the request of the petitioner. Let amended memo of parties be filed.