VINOD KAPUR Vs. CHABI PYNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sri V.K.Kapoor, claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s. Queen Power Engineering Company has filed this appeal against the judgement of remand dated 31st August, 1996 and decree dated 7th September, 1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, in Title Appeal No.81 of 1985 by reversing the judgment of dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability passed by the learned Munsif, 5th Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No.252 of 1990 vide Order 97 dated 24th February, 1995.

(2.) THE respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for eviction against M/s. Queen Power Engineering Works, a partnership firm, on the ground of expiry of lease dated 26th August, 1965 by efflux of time. Mr. V. K. Kapoor (since deceased) appeared claiming to be sole proprietor of M/s. Queen Power Engineering Works on the ground that said partnership firm dissolved on 31st March, 1988 and he continued to possess said property to run the business as its sole proprietor. Said Mr. Kapoor filed applications under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, for addition of party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Order 30 Rule 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by Mr. Kapoor for being added as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Order No.13 dated 25th September, 1999. Mr. Kapoor preferred a revisional application against said order being Civil Order No.39 of 1992.

(3.) BEING aggrieved with the said order Mr. Kapoor (since deceased) has filed this appeal alleging that the learned Lower Appellate Court made substantial error of law in holding that the suit against the dissolved partnership firm bereft of partners was maintainable, and that Mr. Kapoor had no locus standi to participate in the proceedings as proprietor of the firm. It is further case of the appellant that learned Lower Appellate Court further committed substantial error of law in deciding those two issues when he was of the opinion that those issues were mixed questions of law and fact and should have been decided on evidence.