( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of an application made in OS. 322 74 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Civil Staltion, Bangalore, for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from executing the order for eviction passed under the House Rent Control Act. The trial court refused to pass an order of temporary injunction and that order has been affirmed on appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in MA. 10/74. Hence this revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner who has been aggrieved by the order of the Courts below.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY Stated, the facts are: The suit relates to certain business premises in the City of Bangalore. The landlord filed eviction petition in hrc. 188/69 in the Court of the Munsiff, Civil Station. The party respondent in the HRC case has been described as Jhamatmal Sons. Notice of that petition was served on respondent 4. The mother of respondent 4 however contested the proceedings before the HRC Court. The Munsiff dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal by the landlord, that order of the Munsiff was affirmed; but on a revision petition filed by the landlord the orders of the Courts below were reversed and an order for eviction was made granting one year's time for the tenant to vacate the premises. When the landlord filed execution for delivery of possession, the petitioner instituted os. 322/74 seeking the relief of declaration that the order of eviction obtained by respondents 1 and 2 is a nullity as the sons of Jhamatmal rawachand Sadarangani and other heirs were not made parties to the proceedings and prayed for a perpetual injunction against the landlord from executing the order of eviction.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner who is the plaintiff is that the premises had been taken on lease by his father the late J. R. Sadarangani who was carrying on business under the name and style of Jhamatmal Sons and that on the death of the said J. R. Sadarangani the business devolved on his sons and widow and since they had not been impleaded as parties to the eviction petition, the decree is a nullity.

( 4 ) IT is conceded by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the death of the plaintiff's father the business was carried on under 'the same name, viz, Jhamatmal Sons and that the dealer's licence under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act had also been obtained in the same name. Since both the Courts below have refused to make an order of injunction, this Court can interfere in revision only if there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction or if the order of the Court below is perverse. The argument of Sri Narayana Rao is that R. 10 of Or. 30 CPC is not applicable to cases where more than one person carry on the business in an assumed name or in the firm name. For that purpose, he relied on the decision in chidambaram v. National City Bank, AIR 1938 Mad 707. He also relied on the judgment of Sulaiman, J. (as he then was) in Hsbib Bux v. Samuel Fitx and Co. , AIR 1926 All. 161.

( 5 ) THE judgment of Sulaiman, J. instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, supports the, case of the respondents. The learned Judge has stated : " When the sole proprietor of a firm dies his heirs certainly inherit the stock-in-trade the outstandng dues and even the goodwill, but such heirs do not ipso facto become partners of the firm. When there was a sole proprietor, there was no question of a partnership which must be between more than one person. On the death of the sole proprietor his heirs do not automatically become partners of the old firm but merely are heirs to the assets of the deceased. Before a partnership can come into existence there must be an express or implied agreement between the heirs that the old firm should be continued. This agreement might be inferred from the fact that the firm was allowed to carry on business even after the death of the sole proprietor. But in the absence of any such evidence it would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document