IMPORTANT POINTS
Firm’s partners and employees working in the Firm are bound by the eviction decree.
Partners of the Firm and the employees working in the Firm cannot claim any legal right of his own to occupy or to remain in possession of the tenanted premises.
Tenancy is created between two persons who may be living or juristic persons.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.493/2008 allowing the said revision application filed by the respondents herein.

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so are the issues involved in the appeal, a short one. It would, however, be clear from the facts mentioned infra.

4. The appellants are the plaintiffs (landlords) whereas the respondents are the defendants (tenant).

5. One Mr. Sawalaram Shriram Malu and Mr. Nandkishore Sawalaram Malu (father and son respectively) jointly owned House No.47/48 situated in Madhavnagar at Sangli (MH) (hereinafter called "the suit house"). They let out the suit house to a firm called "M/s Biyani Textile" (hereinafter referred to as "the Firm”) on a monthly rent of Rs.260/-.

6. On 09.03.1982, the landlords served a quit notice on the tenant-Firm and determined the tenancy by demanding arrears of rent for the period 01.06.1980 to 28.02.1982 and possession of the suit house. Since the Firm did not pay the arrears as demanded and nor vacated the suit house, the landlords were constrained to file a civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 317 of 1982 claiming decree for arrears of rent and eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act. The suit was filed against one employee of the Firm-defendant no.1 and partners of the Firm-defendant nos.2 to 9 in the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sangli.

7. Defendant no.1 filed his written statement whereas defendant nos. 3, 4 to 9 filed their written statement jointly. So far as defendant no.1 is concerned, he set up his case contending that he was working as employee of the Firm. He further contended that in 1980, there was some discussion between the plaintiffs and the partners of the Firm about vacating of the suit house and pursuant thereto, the Firm vacated the suit house. The suit house was then let out to defendant no.1 by the plaintiffs. It was then contended that plaintiff no.1 died and his legal representatives not having been brought on record, the suit could not be continued at the instance of plaintiff no. 2 for want of any privity of contract between defendant no.1 and the plaintiff no.2.

8. So far as the partners of the Firm, i.e., defendant nos. 3, 4 to 9, are concerned, they contended that they having vacated the suit house in May 1980 and cleared all their arrears of rent, they are no more liable to do anything in the case and, therefore, suit against them is liable to be dismissed.

9. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.10.1991, dismissed the suit against defendant no.1 whereas it was decreed against defendant nos. 2 to 9. Firstly, it was held that the suit house was let out to the Firm through their partners (defendant nos.2 & 3) and, therefore, the Firm was the tenant. Secondly, the Firm had committed defaults in payment of arrears of rent and also failed to re-pay when demanded by the plaintiff. Thirdly, defendant no.1 was an employee of the Firm. Fourthly, defendant no. 1 was not the tenant of the plaintiff as claimed by him and was in unauthorized occupation of the suit house as a trespasser. Fifthly, the Firm and its partners (defendant Nos.2 to 9) having failed to pay the arrears of rent, are liable to be evicted from the suit house under the Bombay Rent Control Act. Sixthly, the suit did not abate on the death of plaintiff no.1 because plaintiff no.2 is already on record and sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased, plaintiff no.1. Seventhly, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file separate suit against defendant no.1 under the general law to claim possession of suit house because he was found to be in possession of the suit house as trespasser and no eviction decree can be passed against a trespasser under the Rent laws.

10. Felt aggrieved, Plaintiff no.2 filed first appeal being R.S.A. No. 577 of 1991 before the District J