# [1985] 1 S.C.R. 268

- **Citation:** [1985] 1 S.C.R. 268
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1985
- **Bench:** P.N. Bhagwat!, Sabyasachi Mukharjj
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1985-1-s-c-r-268-8681
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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

## Text

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 applicat10n 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
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
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
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
application for eviction under the HRC Order was concerned.
But
we agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that this cannot 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 proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the partners of the firm are
before the Court though in a wrong name.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, therefore, 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
!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 amendment 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
'
l
-
•
'
.•..,.
I
'
,
1
'
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
,