LIEYA Vs. KALIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question whether a rent control petition is maintainable against a partnership firm without individual partners in the array of parties is the one that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Eviction Petition was filed under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 against M/s. Kaliappa Chettiar Sons, stated to be a registered partnership firm. Objection was filed by the Managing Partner, representing the firm, stating that the Petition framed is not maintainable since there is no provision of law under which a rent control petition can be filed against a partnership firm without all its parties in the array of parties. We will first examine the above mentioned legal question.

(3.) The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the 'Act' is intended to regulate the leasing of buildings in the State of Kerala. S.11 of the Act deals with grounds for eviction of the tenant. The word 'tenant' has been defined under S.2(6) of the Act to mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant, and a person continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy in his favour, etc. The definition of 'tenant' is an inclusive definition comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. In other words, the definition of 'tenant' bears both its extended statutory meaning and its ordinary, popular and natural meaning. The Legislature has used the expression 'any person by whom or on whose account' rent is payable. The word 'any' has to be understood as indefinitely to an appreciable extent. In order to decide whether in a particular instance, the word 'person' includes an artificial person or a Corporation or a company, regard must be had to the setting in which the word 'person' is placed, the circumstances in which it is used, and the context in which it stands. The use of the words 'any' and 'person' are to be understood in that context. The Act does not define the word 'person'. But the word 'person' has been defined under S.2(26) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, which says that 'person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. It is true under the law of Partnership, a firm has no legal existence, apart from its persons. It is merely a compendious entily described as partners. The word 'person' shall include an association or body of individuals. Partners, who are manifestly a body of individuals, would fall within the definition of 'person' contained in S.2(26) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that since a partnership firm is an association or body of individuals, it will satisfy the definition of 'person' under S.2(6) of the Act read with S.2(26) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125.