SOAMCHAND SANKHARIA Vs. SING LIGHT HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Pune, dated February 21, 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1988.

(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord in respect of the suit property situated at House No. 429, Budhwar Peth, Pune consisting of a garage on the ground floor admeasuring 17 x 9 only. The suit premises were let out to the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- plus Rs. 5/- towards education cess and other taxes. According to the petitioner, the suit premises was let out to the respondent No. 1, which is a registered partnership firm. The respondent No. 2 is one of the partner in the said firm along with his brother Jasbirsingh. The respondent No. 2 is stated to be managing all the business and the affairs of the firm. As the petitioner required the suit premises for his personal use for keeping his car, he called upon the respondents to vacate the suit premises, by a written notice. Inspite of the said notice, the respondents did not vacate the suit premises-for which reason the petitioner instituted the suit for recovery of possession against the respondent before the Court of Small Causes Court at Pune, being Civil Suit No. 46 of 1985, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. This suit was resisted by the respondents. The respondents raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties; for, according to the respondents, all the partners of the respondent No. 1 firm were not impleaded as defendants to the suit. Though other points were raised, we are not concerned with the same in this petition and are therefore not adverted to herein.

(3.) SUFFICE it to mention that the suit proceeded before the trial Court and the trial Court by its judgment and order dated April 25, 1988 decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. In so far as the abovesaid issue of maintainability of the suit, the trial Court in para 31 of its decision has observed that the said issue was not at all argued on behalf of the respondents nor any evidence was led. Nevertheless the trial Court, having regard to the materials on record held that there was no substance in the said objection. Moreover, according to the trial Court, the law was that-suit against the firm without joining the partners as defendants was competent. Besides, on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement, the trail Court recorded a clear finding that the same was duly established in evidence by the petitioner. Even on the issue of greater hardship, the trial Court answered the same in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial Court directed the respondents to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner.