CHHOTELAL PYARELAL THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ORS. versus SHIKHARCHAND

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 27-07-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHHOTELAL PY AREL AL 
THE PARENERSHIP FIRM AND ORS. 
v. 
n 
SHIKHARCHAND 
July '27, 1984 
[P.N. BHAGWAT! AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJJ, JJ.] 
C 
Central Provincei and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 
D 
E. 
F 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
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] 
(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] 
A 
B 
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 • 
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 
·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 
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 
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 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) 1 S.CR, 
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 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.