BIREN DISGUPTA Vs. AJIT KUMAR LAHA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/opposite parties filed an Ejectment suit No. 709 of 2000 in the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta against M/s. Kine Pictures as defendant No. 1 and Nimish Ray and Sambhu Nath Ghosh and defendant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively being the partners of the said firm. Evidently, by an agreement of tenancy dated 7th Dec., 1968 the aforesaid defendant Nos. 2 & 3 along with Shri Chittaranjan Mukherjee and Nirmal Banerjee both since deceased were inducted as tenants in the suit premises for the purpose of carrying on a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Kine Pictures, the defendant No. 1. Said Chittaranjan Mukherjee and Nirmal Banerjee died before filing of the suit. It has also not been disputed that the said defendant Nos. 2 & 3 have also died in the meantime.

(2.) In these state of affairs, the applicant'petitioner namely Birendra Dasgupta made an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Sec. 151 of the Code for being added as a party defendant to the said suit for ejectment as being one of the partners of M/s. Kine Pictures, the defendant No. 1. It was alleged by him that upon reconstitution of the said partnership business amongst defendant No. 2 and the applicant he was inducted as a partner in the partnership business. By an order dated 20th April, 2001 the said petition was rejected. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4A of the Code for the purpose of appointing the Administrator General and Official Trustee as a party to the suit for ejectment to represent the Estate of the deceased partners as all the partners of the said partnership business had died in the meantime. By an order dated 18th May, 2001 the said petition was also rejected. Both the aforesaid orders dated 20th April, 2001 and 18th May, 2001 have been impugned in this revisional application.

(3.) In these state of things it is necessary to consider the legality and validity of the order dated 20th April, 2001. Because if the said order is sustained then only the question will crop up for consideration of the order dated 18th May, 2001 otherwise occasion will not arise for consideration of the same. Mr. Priyabrata Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner contended that in view of the partnership agreement dated 6.11.1995 between defendant No. 2 since deceased and the applicant/petitioner, the said partnership business stood reconstituted and as such the applicant/petitioner is both a necessary and proper party for being impleaded in the said suit for ejectment against the said firm and it's partners. The learned Court therefore exercised his jurisdiction illegally in not impleading the applicant/petitioner as a party defendant to the said suit. The reasonings given by the Court that the partnership firm is not a legal entity and therefore induction of a partner upon reconstitution of the partnership business amounted to subletting of the premises to the newly inducted partner were absolutely upon misconception of law.