Holding

An eviction application under the HRC Order cannot be maintained against a partnership firm in its firm name because CPC Order 30 does not apply, but the misdescription can be rectified by adding the partners' names.

Summary

The landlord filed an eviction application under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 against the partnership firm M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal. The firm contended that the application was not maintainable because the partners were not joined as respondents. The Supreme Court held that Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a firm to sue or be sued in its own name, does not apply to proceedings under the HRC Order; therefore, an eviction suit cannot be maintained against a partnership firm in its firm name. However, the Court treated the omission of partners as a misdescription that could be corrected by adding their names. The appeal was allowed, the amendment was permitted, and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for disposal on merits.

Issues considered

Whether an eviction application under the HRC Order can be maintained against a partnership firm in its firm name without joining the partners.
Whether Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings under the HRC Order.
Whether a misdescription of respondents can be corrected at any stage of the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949s. Clause 13(3)(vi), s. Clause 13(3)(vii)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 30

Subjects

evictionpartnership firmmisdescriptionOrder 30 CPCrent controlHRC Orderamendment of partiesprocedural law

Judgment

A CHHOTELAL PY AREL AL
THE PARENERSHIP FIRM AND ORS.

v.
SHIKHARCHAND
n
July '27, 1984

[P.N. BHAGWAT! AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJJ, JJ.] •
C Central Provincei and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,
1949, Clause 13(3) (vi) and (vii)-Eviction Appltcation against partnership
firm in the firm name as respondent-Whether 1naintainable-Non-joinder of
partners -Wherher misdescription and can be corrected.
•
Code of Civil Proceadure, 1908:; 0.30-Whether applies to proceedings
D under C.P. and Berar Letting of Hou~es and Rent Con1rol Order, 1949.

In an eviction application, filed by respondent-landlord against the
appellant-a partnership firm under Clause 13(3) (vi) and (vii) of the Central
Provinces and BJrar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (HRC
Order for short) the appellant raised a preliminary obj!!ction that the
E.
application agairist the p:irtnership firm was not maintainable without
joining its pJrtners as respondents. The High Court ultim~.tely held that
such an application for eviction was maintainable. Hence tho appeal to
this Court.

F
Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back to the Rent Con ..
troller,

HELD : ( 1) It is only by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 of
the Code of Civil Procedure that a firm can sue and be sued in its own
G name without the partners being impleading co.nominee. But, since the
Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the HRC
Order, no application for eviction under HRC Order can be maintained
against a firm in the firm name. [270D·E)

H (2) The firm is merely a compendious name for the partners consti ..
CHHOTELAL v. SHIKHARCHAND (Bhagwati, J.) 269

tuting it and an eviction application filed under HRC Order against a A
partnership firm without joining any partner constituting the firm as a
resp0ndent to the application would be merely a case of misdescription
of the respondents to the application and this misdescription can be correct·
ed at any stage of the procedings. [270E-F]

B
(3) In the instant case, the Court allowed the respondent to amend
the title· of the original application by adding the names cf the partners
of the appellant firm and remitted the case back to the case Rent Controller
for ea~Jy disposal on merits. [270H; 271A]
• CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3027 of c
1984

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 9th day of April, 1984 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
• 51of1979 •
D
U.R. Lalit and Mrs. J. Wad for the Appellants.

V.A. Bobde and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E

·B1HGWATI, J: The respondent filed an application under
clauses 13 (3) (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses
and Rent Control Order of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as HRC
Order) to evict petitioner No. 1 firm of M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal.
The respondent alleged that the firm was a tenant in respect of the F
premises and eviction of the firm was sought on the ground of bona
fide requirement of the respondent for the purpose of his occupation
• under paragraph (vi). as also for the purpose of making essential
repairs under paragraph (vii) of Clause 13(3). The firm of .
Chhotelai Pyarelal raised a preliminary contention that no appli·
cation could be maintained against a partnership firm and such an G
application was liable to be rejected. This contention ultimately
came to be considered by a learned single Judge of the High Court
at Nagpur. The learned single Judge being under the impression
that there was still operative a judgment of another single Judge of
the High Court taking the view that such an application against
a partnership firm was not maintainable, referred this question to a
lar!ler Bench. This question accordingly came up before a Division
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985) 1 S.CR,
A
Bench of the High Court. It was pointed out before the Division
~ench that undoubtedly a view was at one time taken by a learned
smgle Judge tha.t a~ application for eviction agains t a partnership
firm was not mamtamable but this view was over ruled by a Division
Bench of .the High Court in a Letters Patent appeal filed against
B that dec1s1on. The Division Bench accordingly held that an appli-
cat10n for eviction under the HRC Order was maintainable against
a partnership firm without joining any partner constituting the
partnership firm as a respondent to the application. This view
laken by the Division Bench is assailed in the present appeal filed
by the firm of M/s. Chhotelal Pyar0hl with special leave obtained
c Jrom this Court.

Now, there can be no doubt that since the Code of Civil
Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the HRC Order, no
application for evictfon can be maintained against a firm in the firm
name. The firm is merely a compendious name for the partners
D
constituting it and it is only by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 '
of the Code of Civil Procedure that a firm can sue and be sued in l
its own name without the partners being impleaded co-nominee.
It is therefore clear that the firm of M's, Chhotelal Pyarelal could
not be sued in the firm name by the respondent in so· far as the
E application for eviction under the HRC Order was concerned. But
we agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that this can-
not by itself result in the dismissal of the application. It would be

-
merely a case of misdescription of the respondents' to the application
and this misdescription can be corrected a~ any stage of the procee-
dings. There can be no doubt that the partners of the firm are
F before the Court though in a wrong name.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, there-
fore, applied Jo us for leave to amend the cause title of the original
application by adding the names of the partners of the firm of M/s •
Chhotelal Pyarelal as respondents along with the firm of Mis Chhote
G !al Pyarelal and carrying out necessary consequential amendments in
the body of the application. We allow the application for amendment
and remit the case back to the Rent Controller so that he may
dispose it of on merits. The respondent will carry out the amend-
ment in the application for eviction within two weeks from the date
of receipt of this Order by the Rent Controller and the newly added
respondents will file their written statement in answer to the
H
'
CHHOTEAAL v. SHJKHARCHAND (Bhagwati, J.) 271

application for eviction within a further period of four weeks there· A
after. The Rent Controller will then proceed to dispose of the
application for eviction as expeditiously as possible and in any
event before the expiration of a period of 6 months. There will be
no order as to costs of the appeal.

ML.A. Appeal allowed. B

.•..,. I

'

,
1

'
,