AMARJEET SINGH Vs. BHUPENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sidharth Nandan and Shri Fareed Ahmad for the petitioner, Sri M.P. Yadav for the opposite parties and Shri Shishir Pradhan and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants seeking impleadment.

(2.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional District Judge in Rent Control Appeal No. 0000006/2013 and the order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act) of the Act, 1972 (For short 'the Act, 1972') allowing the application of the landlord for release of the tenanted premises for his genuine and bona fide need.

(3.) The only ground raised by Shri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that it is the partnership firm by the name and style "M/s Singh Tyre" which was the tenant of the premises in question, but, only one of the partners who is the petitioner herein Amarjeet Singh was arrayed as a defendant, therefore, the proceedings before the Courts below are a nullity and suffer from non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. In this regard he relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on 02.02.2017 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 823/2015; Richard Lee v. Girish Soni and Anr. , wherein, according to him it was held that even though all the partners of a firm are not necessary parties from the point of view of the eviction petitioners, but, a Court has a duty to see whether the presence of the proper parties would facilitate the complete determination of the matter in dispute.