SINNALAL Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the rejection of his appeal by the District Judge, Pali preferred under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act of 1964') which was preferred against the orders of Estate Officer dt. 25.03.1987 and 24.11.1987 by which the Estate Officer passed the order for taking possession of the premises in dispute and thereafter, passed the order for recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs.50,623/ -.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the notice Annex. 1 was issued in the name of firm Kesrimal Sinnalal whereas the notice should have been to all the partners of the firm if the stand taken by the respondents is accepted that the said firm was a partnership firm. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal Pyarelal The Partnership Firm and Ors. v. : [1985]1SCR268 , the proceedings for eviction against the firm in the name of the firm is not maintainable and all the partners of the firm are required to be impleaded as party in the proceedings for eviction. It is also submitted that this Court in the judgment delivered in the case of Sita Ram and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors. reported in, 1988 (1) RLR 991 also held that if the order is passed without impleading the legal representatives and partners of a firm, the proceedings for eviction are vitiated. In view of the above reason, the order passed by the Estate Officer dt. 25.03.1987 is absolutely illegal and void as has been passed against the dead person and that too without impleading any of the necessary parties in the proceedings. It is submitted that the initiation of the proceedings in the name of the firm was illegal, apart from the fact that after death of Kesrimal, proceedings could not have been continued.