SOHAN SINGH Vs. PRATAP MILLS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision against order dated 09.11.2017 passed by learned Rent Controller, Khanna, dismissing application of revisionpetitioner seeking dismissal of ejectment petition at initial stage on the ground as follows:-

(2.) Learned Rent Controller has observed that present ejectment petition has been filed by respondents seeking ejectment of revisionpetitioner on the ground of material alteration, bona fide necessity besides ground of subletting. In the earlier petition filed by landlords-respondents, he had raised the plea of subletting, which was discarded. Regarding the plea of revision-petition that ejectment application is not fulfilling the requirement of Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act and Section 30 CPC, it was observed that ejectment petition does not fall under the purview of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, as a partner is deemed to be representative of a partnership firm and can file the ejectment petition. The question regarding existence of M/s Pratap Mills is a question of fact and requires evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in earlier ejectment petition, Appellate Authority, Ludhiana has recorded finding that he found merit in submission raised by tenant that the tenancy of land and super structure cannot be bifurcated and Sukhwant Rai has no locus standi to file the ejectment petition on this ground. In view of above finding, Sukhwant Rai has no authority to file the ejectment petition. He has further argued that the finding of learned Rent Controller recorded in earlier petition regarding subletting and rate of rent has attained finality, as such, cannot be re-agitated in this petition and learned Rent Controller while dismissing the application has observed that the present ejectment petition is maintainable and this is a finding on merit, which could not be recorded at this stage.